To hit or not to hit ...

[StahlMeister]

Well, we played about 12 TROS Session the last 3 month. But yesterday, when I was cleaning my house my thoughts drifted through the excellent rules of TROS and a question arose from it:
When a combatant tries to hit a zone at his foe and does a narrow miss, isn't there a chance to accidently hit another zone???
I don't know if this is handled in the Rulebook.

Thanks for Your help and possible suggestions.

Greetings from Europe...

[Thanaeon]

An answer from someone who hasn't done swordsplay himself:

I'd say that yes, realistically, I suppose a strike that just misses, might hit another location instead.

However, what I'd like to ask you, in turn, is whether you would want to make such a rule for the RPG... How would it work? In case of a tie, roll a random (or slightly random) other hit location? In that case, it would make offense very powerful, and defence would become much less useful. Sounds like a bad idea to me, since I like having defence be a viable option. Or would the hit location only be random if the MoS for the attacker was one? In that case, hit locations would become far more random than they are in the core rules. I'm not saying whether this is good or bad, since I do not have the experience, but just making an observation.

Finally, what about thrusts? If a thrust just misses, can it really hit another location? Perhaps, but it might be less likely. So should thrusting use a different "miss-hit" rules?

[chade0]

Hi,

When a combatant tries to hit a zone at his foe and does a narrow miss, isn't there a chance to accidently hit another zone???

I like the idea.

How would it work? In case of a tie, roll a random (or slightly random) other hit location? In that case, it would make offense very powerful, and defence would become much less useful. Sounds like a bad idea to me, since I like having defence be a viable option.

And with this I agree.

Or would the hit location only be random if the MoS for the attacker was one?

I think this might be worth considering. However imo the hit location shouldn't be random, it should be near the original location.

Finally, what about thrusts? If a thrust just misses, can it really hit another location? Perhaps, but it might be less likely. So should thrusting use a different "miss-hit" rules?

I think thrusts could miss aswell but as I mentioned before, the new hit location should be near the original one.

I'd really like some little random for the hit locations because I think it is more realistic that you can actually hit some location that you did not aim for. But, I haven't done swordsplay either so I'm only guessing... =)
I hope someone who is familiar with fencing would enlighten me and us.



chade

[Ashren Va'Hale]

with ranged weapons the rule is that you may rule a tie as hitting an adjacent area, you could do the same in this I suppose... but in riddle, your "misses" are generally the result of a defensive action, ie I parry and deflect your hit. The only true case of missing would be rolling 0 succeses in which case you suck and should be wiffing.

What you could do, if you REALLLY wnated to house rule this is say that a cut or thrust which is defended until the margin of success is 0 can be ruled as your" narrow miss" and hits an adjacent area. Narrated as the defense only bounced it into a different spot instead of successfully neutralizing the attack.

Your game though so do what makes sense for you.

[Lxndr]

You could roll a 1d8-1 instead of 1d6 for hit location.

0 would mean "hit the area above" and 7 would mean "hit the area below"

(or roll a 1d7, if you get a hold of it, and 7 meaning "hit another area, roll randomly".  but not many people have d7)

[StahlMeister]

You could roll a 1d8-1 instead of 1d6 for hit location.

0 would mean "hit the area above" and 7 would mean "hit the area below"

(or roll a 1d7, if you get a hold of it, and 7 meaning "hit another area, roll randomly".  but not many people have d7)

That sounds very good. First I thought, to give a certain percent chance to check at 0 margin of successes rolling a d100, but thats a good idea to roll a d8 for the hit zone. Maybe a d10 when there's a chance to hit zones e.g. fighting a giant spider or something.

Man... when I got some time I'll start a website with additional and house rules.

Thank You all for Your help and suggestions.
Greetings from Europe.

btw my true name is Dirk (no I'm not a dagger ;) )

[kidar]

You could roll a 1d8-1 instead of 1d6 for hit location.

0 would mean "hit the area above" and 7 would mean "hit the area below"

Ahh, good idea. The only modification I'd made is to throw D8 only when MoS is 1 or 2 (or maybe 3), otherwise you could miss even if you were attacking a sleepping person =).

[Sneaky Git]

What you could do, if you REALLLY wnated to house rule this is say that a cut or thrust which is defended until the margin of success is 0 can be ruled as your" narrow miss" and hits an adjacent area. Narrated as the defense only bounced it into a different spot instead of successfully neutralizing the attack.

I'm more of the mind that a missis not necessarily a miss, but a failure to damage.

[kenjib]

I'm more of the mind that a missis not necessarily a miss, but a failure to damage.

Well, no, a missus is not a miss, but a miss might become a missus.  Now - a missus fail to damage?  You must not be married.  As much as I love my wife, when a missus gets upset all bets are off.

[Bob Richter]

Sneaky Git, I think you're still playing DnD.

In TROS a miss is a miss

If you hit the guy, but due to his armor/hide/swordsmanship it fails to do damage, that's exactly what happens in the rules, too.

I like it that way. Don't muddy the waters.

[Jake Norwood]

Dammit, I agree with Bob again.

I gotta quit that.

;-)

Jake

[Sneaky Git]

Sneaky Git, I think you're still playing DnD.

Ouch.  *smarts from what many here consider a shot*  I think you might have taken me a bit too literally.

In TROS a miss is a miss.

Yeah.  I got that.

I like it that way. Don't muddy the waters.

I like it this way too...and had no intention of muddying the waters.  Rather, I was trying (read: failing) to voice my opinion that playing the "I aim for Target X but miss so I might hit Target Y" game would needlessly muddy the waters.

Well, no, a missus is not a miss, but a miss might become a missus.  Now - a missus fail to damage?  You must not be married.  As much as I love my wife, when a missus gets upset all bets are off.

Cute.  Thanks for the relevant response. ;p


Chris

[Muggins]

I would agree that "miss" should be replaced with "failed attempt" in TROS terms.

In terms of actual swordfighting, you don't normally miss anyway. Either the opponent is not there when your sword gets there, or there is something else between you and the opponent, namely his blade. The only times you hit something you were not aiming for are when the opponent gracefully moves part of his body into the pah of your blade. Commonly this involves holding the hands to high on a static parry, and having the fingers removed. Occasionally, someone completely misjudges the play, and succeeds in killing himself by moving into a blow, taking a head shot instead of a lower blow.

Interestingly, in actual combat, shots to the torso are quite rare. Head and arms are the most hit areas (with a longsword).

James

[Bob Richter]

Okay, Sneaky...I think I get what you're trying to say. That was a very odd way of putting it.

Yes, missing your target just to hit some other part of the body is a very rare occurance (to the order of breaking out a percentage roll, or worse...)
It is usually a failure of swordsmanship on the part of your opponent, who has accidentally put his fingers in the way of his own parry, or deflected your blade into his body (or leg,) or just dodged the wrong way.

This is actually easier to do when you're trying *not* to kill each other while trying to look like you're trying to kill each other.

In other words, it's really not worth worrying about.

In my own boffer-play, we got a lot of finger-hits (no hand-guards,) followed by accidental strikes to the legs, arms, and head. Accidental strikes to the torso are unheard-of, as far as I know.

The torso is very easy to defend as long as you remember to parry away from your body instead of just lamely hitting the other guy's boffer.

Other things can be more difficult. I would say, as a rule of thumb, that the further from your center it is, the harder it is to defend. Obviously, I'm a rank amateur on this one, but that's my take.

[Jake Norwood]

Damn, strike two. I agree with Bob again.

Jake