Hit locations and damage multipliers
Feb 9, 2020 16:48:07 GMT -5
punished ppurg, sirra, and 1 more like this
Post by lechuck on Feb 9, 2020 16:48:07 GMT -5
Here's the list of hit locations, the damage multiplier for each, and the chance for an attack to hit that body part.
As far as I can tell, skills have no bearing on where you hit. It simply rolls a 1d100 and each location has a range of numbers assigned to it. There's no particular rhyme or reason to the table--arms are 80-90, for instance, while neck is 90-95 and head is 95-100. Some species have their own unique tables. There's one for arachnids, one for mammals, one for birds, etc. Humanoids, insects and reptiles all use the same table.
Some weapon types also have inherent damage modifiers. A hit with a chopping weapon deals 50% of the health damage as stun. Slashing does 40%. Bludgeoning does 180% to stun, but only 90% health damage. Piercing/stabbing deals 100% of health damage as stun. There are some for non-player attacks as well, like pinch and sting.
Damage bonuses are multiplied by hit location and weapon modifiers. If you have 19 strength (human exceptional is 18-19), you get +4 damage. When you hit the neck, that becomes +12. If the hit was delivered with a bludgeoning weapon, it would only be +10 for health but +21 for stun.
Weapons generally have damage values that reflect D&D: daggers will be 1d4, shortswords 1d6, longswords/spears/maces 1d8, etc. A weapon of poor quality or bad material (e.g. wooden swords, stone axes) will have -1 while a weapon of high quality may have +1. There may be special cases for unique weapons such as metal or magickal ones.
To illustrate what kind of nonsensical damage can be dealt with the right "setup," let's take a human character with 19 strength and 75 in the two handed skill wielding a basic mace in two hands, which increases your strength bonus to damage by an amount based on your skill. He has +4 damage from strength and another +3 from 75 in two handed (4*75/100). The mace rolls a 5 on its 1d8 for this attack and hits the head.
((5+4+3)x1.8)x3 = 64.8 stun damage.
If the character had instead had 14 strength and used a sword, still rolling 5 and hitting the head, the damage would be:
5x3 = 15 health damage.
So when the character uses a bludgeoning weapon and has high strength, the base damage is more than quadrupled.
Oh, and if that character had been a dwarf with exceptional strength (21) and had rolled an 8 on the 1d8, the stun damage would be ((8+6+4)x1.8)x3 = 97.2. If he used a two-handed maul instead of a basic mace, it might be more like 120 stun damage. Nice, huh? But you can still find morons on the GDB who insist nothing's wrong with that.
Location Dmg% Chance
Neck 300% 5%
Back 250% 0% (can only happen if target is unconscious or paralyzed)
Body 140% 48%
Head 300% 5%
Legs 110% 16%
Feet 100% 4%
Hands 100% 4%
Arms 120% 10%
Waist 160% 2%
Wrist 200% 6% (3% each)
As far as I can tell, skills have no bearing on where you hit. It simply rolls a 1d100 and each location has a range of numbers assigned to it. There's no particular rhyme or reason to the table--arms are 80-90, for instance, while neck is 90-95 and head is 95-100. Some species have their own unique tables. There's one for arachnids, one for mammals, one for birds, etc. Humanoids, insects and reptiles all use the same table.
Some weapon types also have inherent damage modifiers. A hit with a chopping weapon deals 50% of the health damage as stun. Slashing does 40%. Bludgeoning does 180% to stun, but only 90% health damage. Piercing/stabbing deals 100% of health damage as stun. There are some for non-player attacks as well, like pinch and sting.
Damage bonuses are multiplied by hit location and weapon modifiers. If you have 19 strength (human exceptional is 18-19), you get +4 damage. When you hit the neck, that becomes +12. If the hit was delivered with a bludgeoning weapon, it would only be +10 for health but +21 for stun.
Weapons generally have damage values that reflect D&D: daggers will be 1d4, shortswords 1d6, longswords/spears/maces 1d8, etc. A weapon of poor quality or bad material (e.g. wooden swords, stone axes) will have -1 while a weapon of high quality may have +1. There may be special cases for unique weapons such as metal or magickal ones.
To illustrate what kind of nonsensical damage can be dealt with the right "setup," let's take a human character with 19 strength and 75 in the two handed skill wielding a basic mace in two hands, which increases your strength bonus to damage by an amount based on your skill. He has +4 damage from strength and another +3 from 75 in two handed (4*75/100). The mace rolls a 5 on its 1d8 for this attack and hits the head.
((5+4+3)x1.8)x3 = 64.8 stun damage.
If the character had instead had 14 strength and used a sword, still rolling 5 and hitting the head, the damage would be:
5x3 = 15 health damage.
So when the character uses a bludgeoning weapon and has high strength, the base damage is more than quadrupled.
Oh, and if that character had been a dwarf with exceptional strength (21) and had rolled an 8 on the 1d8, the stun damage would be ((8+6+4)x1.8)x3 = 97.2. If he used a two-handed maul instead of a basic mace, it might be more like 120 stun damage. Nice, huh? But you can still find morons on the GDB who insist nothing's wrong with that.