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...

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?

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???

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?

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?

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.

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)

Lxndr wrote: 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)

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"

Ashren Va'Hale wrote: 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.

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

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.

Dammit, I agree with Bob again.

I gotta quit that.

;-)

Jake

Bob Richter wrote: Sneaky Git, I think you're still playing DnD.

Bob Richter wrote: In TROS a miss is a miss.

Bob Richter wrote: I like it that way. Don't muddy the waters.

kenjib wrote: 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.

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

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.

Damn, strike two. I agree with Bob again.

Jake

If we get to three, you know the world ends, right?
:)

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

Bob Richter wrote:
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.

or right arm
or third arm ;)

In my experience torso shots are less common, and do often end in shots to various extremities when swinging at an opponent. TROS models this in a few ways:

1) Bonus to hit arms
2) lethality of hitting head, and the range of potential targets in the IV and V charts


Here's one I've contemplated:
3) House rule for attacks to III, so that the arms become one of the 1-6 possibilities.

Jake

Here's one I've contemplated:
3) House rule for attacks to III, so that the arms become one of the 1-6 possibilities.