Over-damage!

[Lance D. Allen]

Okay, I made an on-the-spot call tonight when one of my players attempted to strike-to-wound with a greatsword. The target had a handaxe raised over his head to strike, and the player called a shot to the arm, attempting to cut off the arm entirely. He rolled, and with successes, ST and weapon DR, it came to a DR of 11... after TO was subtracted.

The cut went into the upper arm.. Lvl 5, the arm is lost. On the fly, I made him roll the d6 for location again, and checked the adjacent zone for another Lvl 5 wound. Basically I had the sword go through the arm and bury itself deep into the shoulder, with cumulative bleeding for both. Despite attempts to bind his wounds, he bled to death in short order. (I was actually hoping for a messier dismemberment, like through the arm and through the side of his head... heheh)

The player making the strike protested as he desired only to wound, but considering that he rolled... 8 dice in his attack, I think his character's intentions were entirely different.. And the other players thought it made a great deal of sense, and didn't even question the fact that I'd made the call off the top of my head. I will be using the over-damage rule from now on, 'cause I think it's neat, but I wanted to post about it, and see what you all thought.

Also, another one I've been considering that would slightly "nerf" the shield in a realistic way is a type of over-damage rule -vs- shields.

If you hit a location which is passively covered by the shield, it applies a passive AV to that location. If it goes over the AV of the shield, it still does damage, correct? My thought is based off of this. If a shield is used to successfully block, I think that a damage should be calculated anyhow, based on the attacker's successes before the block attempt. If the total damage goes over the AV of the shield, then it will leak over into the character. TO and whatever armor the character is wearing may reduce this to nothing anyhow, but it will mean that a shield will not make you invincible. For example...

An unarmored mook uses his kite shield to block against an longbowman. The archer, having aimed for a few moments, has his full missile pool of 13, and fires. The target is within the first increment, but is moving sufficiently to warrant a -3 penalty, so 10 dice are rolled as the archer aims for center mass. He rolls: 8, 7, 7, 7, 7, 6, 4, 4, 4 and 2, for 5 successes. The mook with the shield rolls his entire CP (a whopping 8, due to lack of proficiency) to block: 10, 7, 6, 6, 5, 3, 3 and 1, for 5 successes. Looks like the mook wins, but just barely...

but wait a moment, now we apply the overdamage rule.. The archer calculates damage using the original successes, (5+8=13) and does 3 points more than the AV of the shield. That means that those 3 points roll over to the mook himself. We'll say average toughness of 4 and no armor, so the arrow doesn't hurt him as it passes into the shield... but he feels it as it tickles him in the ribcage.

So, whaddya think? Is this good stuff, or am I working it too hard? Good optional rules for Flower of Battle, perhaps? ::hopeful expression::

[Bankuei]

A fun idea, although I also had issues trying only to wound folks.  I disagree that throwing 8 dice means it has to be a "kill" strike.  The amount of dice you put into an attack are supposed to represent the skill and effort you're putting into it, whether its a kill or a grapple(see Hook Manuever).  My rule for striking to injure is that you can decide when declaring your attack how many extra CP you're going to spend to "pull the blow".  Each extra CP allows you to lower the final wound by 1 level.

Chris

[Jake Norwood]

I agree with Chris' pulling-the-blow maneuver. It fits in pretty well with what I've seen IRL.

As for blow-through damage...we've got a house rule that says anything past level 5 goes onto the next obvious zone (if there's one at hand), much like what you did. Thus an 11-point final wound could clean through 2 unarmored legs (which actually happened from time to time, I might add).

Jake

[Rattlehead]

Ok.. here's how I see it. I like the theatrical and dramatic effects of Overdamage, and damage carrying over to other zones is great too. But, regarding attempting to wound without killing, I have a different take on it.

So, suppose I rolled 5 successes during an attack. What does a "success" on an attack roll represent? It would seem to me that it's "how well" an attack was made, not "how hard" the sword was swung. This isn't an issue if I'm just trying to hack my opponent to bits, as is usually the case. If I'm only attacking to kill, I would be attempting to be as damaging as possible, and the successes would be a representation of how successful my attempt to damage my opponent was.

But if I want to only wound my opponent, then my intent was different. Therefore, my successes should mean something different. The successes I roll in this case should be a representation of how well I accomplished what my intended action was - in this case a less than fatal, but still damaging blow.

How to handle this? Good question, and without giving it much thought, I would suggest this: Allow the attacker to choose how many of his successes are applied as damage. The rest are just gravy. They're not lost or "wasted", as they are why he was successful. Also, all of an attacker's successes should be used in contest against a defender's defense. But in the end, after all defense is handled, the margin remaining is there for the attacker to spend on damage - if he so chooses. Allow the attacker to decide after defense is handled, but before damage is applied, how many of his successes are wound levels.

This may put too much into the hands of the players. But, on the other hand, letting the players get what they want isn't always bad, as long as it doesn't ruin the "balance" of the game. Then again, since TROS relies more on common sense and good roleplaying to impose balance, rather than rules, this is really a moot point.

Just my 2 pfinnig,

Brandon

[Ben]

...when swinging, one can pull their shot...but as the effert to land the shot increases the harder it is to lessen the blow.
Perhaps a player could pull their blow by half or alter the end damage by a number = to their WIT or Reflex.
just a thought, anyway...

[contracycle]

I agree with rattlehead, just let the player say.  I mean, unless you felt a need to kill the NPC, all this achieved was frustrating your player, who went from "cool" to "clumsy" in this situation.  And it will also be quicker just tio tajke the players direction rather than do any more fiddling and calculating.

[Lance D. Allen]

Okay, let me clarify.. He declared, after rolling the successes and calculating the total damage that he wasn't trying to kill the mook. I shrugged and did it anyhow, because honestly, when you're ambushed in the dark, and opt to roll 8 or so dice, your character is probably not thinking of allowing the ambusher a chance to live.

I discussed the ruling with him again tonight, and he had no problems with it, so it wasn't a particularly big issue. I will, however, make known to them the option that Chris mentioned, as I think it accurately sums up the effort required to attempt to damage someone but to control exactly how MUCH damage is done. He'd totally intended for the arm to be taken off, but didn't even consider that the sword might actually *keep moving* after the arm was gone. And the guy had pretty much nothin' to defend with, as he'd spent almost all of his CP on the attack, hoping to rely on surprise (failed ambush) to keep him safe. Slowing a greatsword which was swung to dismember isn't an easy task to accomplish... I know just from padded and wooden swords that I've used in messing around with the SCA.

I've noticed no one commented on the idea of blow-through on shields.. I think it has merit, but what about ya'll?


*Tangent Alert* Below this point has nothing to do with the current conversation. You are warned.

I just got me an SCA bastard sword made tonight. It comes up to about my upper sternum resting on the ground, and has over a foot of handle (Lonnie, the guy who made it for me says that it classifies, by SCA rulings, as a greatsword due to this, as historically the handles of bastards were only hand-and-a-half, but hey...) for a nicely two-handed grip. The balance is especially nice, with the fulcrum being about an inch above the cross-guard. I can easily swing it one-handed, though it's heavier, dead-weight, than what I'm used to. I'm enthused..

I think you'd actually have to give Lonnie some props, Jake. He's serious about his style, and is familiar with many of the techniques you've mentioned. He may or may not be your caliber (I doubt it, because he's not an acknowledge free-scholar of anything, but..) but I think you'd find him a cut-above your average SCAdian fighter. I'll have to introduce you at Hexcon.

[Bankuei]

He'd totally intended for the arm to be taken off, but didn't even consider that the sword might actually *keep moving* after the arm was gone.

Um, and he didn't want the guy dead???  "Here, just a little off the side...there ya go!" :P  Bloodloss from losing an arm is nothing nice.

Chris

[Jake Norwood]

I think you'd actually have to give Lonnie some props, Jake. He's serious about his style, and is familiar with many of the techniques you've mentioned. He may or may not be your caliber (I doubt it, because he's not an acknowledge free-scholar of anything, but..) but I think you'd find him a cut-above your average SCAdian fighter. I'll have to introduce you at Hexcon.

Hey- no bad blood on the SCA here! They got me started, and I've met a lot of very earnest folks in the SCA, regardless of Society training and fighting regulations. If I make it to HexCon (it's looking more doubtful lately), then I'd love to meet him and talk shop.

[Lance D. Allen]

Um, and he didn't want the guy dead??? "Here, just a little off the side...there ya go!" :P Bloodloss from losing an arm is nothing nice.

Nope, it's definitely not nice. The sword sheared through the arm and into the shoulder (rather than the head, as I'd hoped.. I like it grisly) incurring a cumulative bloodloss of 25. That was what killed him, rather than the outright wound. The attempts at first aid prolonged the man's life by about a minute, before Gailen realized that he was too badly injured to be saved(ie, bleeding out all over the ground, despite the bandages), and so put his sword through the man's chest.

[Bankuei]

The attempts at first aid prolonged the man's life by about a minute, before Gailen realized that he was too badly injured to be saved(ie, bleeding out all over the ground, despite the bandages), and so put his sword through the man's chest

"What? -4 hp?  Well, here, let's just stabilize this puppy...Um, ok, hey guys, got a Cure Light? No, Uh...well.  Fine!" Thunk!

There's a wake up call for D&Der's :P

Chris

[Trybec]

How about if the number of dice used in an attack becomes the limit for any left over damage. This could represent the effort put into the attack.

A decisive swing with 8 dice is much more likely to blow-through for another wound than, say, a quick flick of the wrist that uses only 4 dice.

Anyway...that's just what I use.

[Jake Norwood]

That's not a bad way to handle it at all.

Jake

[contracycle]

A decisive swing with 8 dice is much more likely to blow-through for another wound than, say, a quick flick of the wrist that uses only 4 dice.

I don't like it.  Who says 8 dice is more "decisive"?  Maybe it was the quick flick of the wrist that was using the 8 dice and the wild swing using the 4 dice.  I think establishing "lots of dice = wild aggression" is a bad precedent; how do you then do a cool duelist with an elegant rapier style and a 10 die pool?

This "blow through" is really a mistake.  Its indicative that the fighter committed too heavily, was not able to control the depth of the blow.  Are they also off balance?  Have they exposed themselves because their sword is now trapped half way through a shield?  This is NOT a reward, its a mistake, and should be LESS likely with high die pools, IMO.

[Trybec]

contracycle,

I can see your point. Perhaps what I should have said is that IMO the number of dice put into an attack indicates commitment to the attack.

Afterall if an attack in the first exchange, is defended against, and the attacker loses initiative, he then has less dice to defend with if he had used 8 dice than if he had used only 4.

If this results in him having too few dice to defend with and getting hit...then yes I would say he had slightly overextended himself.

As for the issue of blow-through, I think one of the tactical aspects of a ROS fight can be knowing (or guessing) how many dice you have to use against a particular opponent to score a hit, and still be able to defend.

I see blow-through as another aspect of this. If you are trying for a strike to wound, you now have to guess how many dice to use to get your hit...without turning your target into a corpse.