I've always liked the HM1 injury table better than HMC/3, or even HMG (HMG seems to be designed to function with the Condition skill).

The biggest problem I have had with HM1 is that the blunt injuries were far more dangerous than P or E ones. It's almost so bad that it's better to have a stick or even a punch than to use a shortsword. Ask the opponents of the Romans as to how danderous a gladius was

Easy way to do it I think - Change the impacts on the Blunt table. Those injuries that occur on Impact 1+ on the blunt table should be moved to a 5+ column. Make the 7+ actually a 9+ (or even a 10+), keep the 13+ as it is and the 19+ as it is.

Make a new 1+ table on the blunt injury chart, make this basically 1D lower on all rolls, for example a F2 becomes a F1.

Now a couple of other ideas - A few have pointed out that in real combat, a few minor wounds are not going to slow someone down a lot, and even major wounds don't have as big of impact when the adrenalin is flowing.

HM1 uses 3 types of wounds - minor, serious and grievous.

On a minor wound, either no impact to ML's, or possibly a -5 IF the character cannot roll under END on a D100. Not sure which would work better.

Serious wound - maybe a -10? And Grievous wound, maybe a -20.

This does NOT impact the ability to pass F/S/E rolls however. Add +1 for every minor wound, +3 every serious wound, and +5 for a grievous wound. The trauma caused by the wounds will impact their ability to pass or not pass F/S/R rolls, basically in essence a +1 for every old IP's caused by HM1.

This also gets rid a bit of the old "death spiral" problem.

Another thought that IMO would add to the game - Increase all F/S/E rolls by 1D6, for instance a E2 roll is now an E3 roll.

However, the penalty for failing these rolls are less. If you fail them by 4+, the fumble/shock/stumble occurs as normal.

However, if they are failed by 1-3 points, it generates a TA for the opponent, and the defender is -20 to defend. They may have lost not actually fumbled or stumbled, but they have caught themselves, but are still off balance and cannot defend as easy. With a chock roll failed by 1-3 points, they are stunned a bit, same penalties. Or you could be more harsh, maybe 1/2 ML or ignore

And a grievous wound ALWAY results in a stun, even if you pass the shock roll. Even that Hru that get's it's foot almost cut off is momentarily stunned.

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....

The +5 on Edge and Point indicate that there is actually enough impact to break the skin after armor.

It is a bit confusing but below 5 impact they still cause injury even at 1+ - only it isn't a "cut" until it reaches 5+. Wearing armor below 5 they are technically bruises - but are still injuries.

When I was rolling the 1-10 injury as according to HM1 I made the injury equal to the impact (though it should have been "minor"=d10). When I switched to 5 point injury levels below 5+ I make them 5 point injuries (except point to the eye which is 10).



When HMC came out I found that 5 point injury levels were easier, more consistant and faster than rolling a d10 for every injury but I didn't like the new tables so I converted the HM1 tables to use 5 point injury levels:

http://bellsouthpwp.net/g/a/garyashburn ... pactn1.pdf

I eased up the impact point collumns on Point aspect a bit and pierced the skin at 3+ for Point vs 5+ for Edge. I modified the hit location charts minorly. etc

I moved to the Physical Penalty on shock rolls etc to +1 point for 5 injury points instead of the HM1 standard Endurance Index of +1 per 10 - which was made really easy when combined with the 5 point injury levels. (basically the same result as "Add +1 for every minor wound, +3 every serious wound, and +5 for a grievous wound" but also with +2, +4,and +6)

Some of the ideas you might like or you are welcome to use the whole thing if you want.

_________________
Member of the CoE (Council of Elitists)

I'm familiar with that part of it. My thoughts are twofold though -

1) Even with causing a bruise or even a minor cut - B impact is still far more effective than E or T.

2) This is even a bigger reason for me - real minor wounds don't really slow someone in combat IMO (Balesir believes even stronger in this thought, that almost all wounds won't slow someone down).

So I really don't want minor 5 IP (or 1 IL) wounds slowing someone down. They may add to the F/S/R rolls, but not the -5 EML that is used.

What makes more sense to me in combat - minor wounds don't slow someone down in combat. But the "advantage" gained from inflicting a minor wound may well open up an advantage for a more decisive blow.

The only thing I see by ignoring minor wounds, and making serious/grievous wounds 10/20 Ip's repsectively - the healing process for a minor wound, and the possible infection from it.

I think you would have to still keep track of minor wounds for healing and possible infection.

The other thing is that when NOT in the heat of combat, all those minor wounds would probably have a bit of an effect, so maybe the 1 IL wounds are ignored in combat, but in non-adrenalin situations the penalties apply.

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....

I find that at low impacts that is true but at high impacts edge is more devastating. And I think edge (and point) weapons may have a slightly higher on base weapon impact that adds for unarmored opponents. Against armored opponents edge is quickly wittled down vs blunt and point.

There is an optional rule that when when edge fails to penetrate it can be recalculated as a blunt strike (I tend to prefer knowing up front when edge is likely to not penetrate and just attack using the blunt aspect.) Although recalculating blunt is a PITA it seems to work reasonably well and the character can always choose to use blunt aspect (not that choosing is necessary since he gets it automatically as a backup method).

With blunt recalc I've never seen a reason for anyone swinging edge to complain of being at a disadvantage.


That would be rough computing the general penalty and the % penalty as two seperate totals.

I've thought of allowing someone to ignore up the first END points of injury without effecting them. You could try calculating as a single value but let someone ignore upto some value of minor injuries. That might be easier than completely ignoring all minor injuries.

_________________
Member of the CoE (Council of Elitists)

Yes, however, perhaps you simply view the injuries resulting from the combat tables as those that do affect combatants as given. That is, just shift your perspective/definition of the actual descriptors: the "minor wounds" that would have no affect aren't even represented on the tables; the penalties of the serious and grievous would be worse than depicted if not for the adrenaline, etc.

On the other hand (if you're not convinced by this point), then simply wait to roll the 1d10 IP from any wound until after the combat. So, a minor/yellow wound would have no IP during combat (1d10 after); a serious/orange would have 10 IP during combat (plus 1d10 after); and a grievous/red would have 20 IP during (plus 1d10 after). This not only reflects your adrenaline idea, but also speeds up play by deferring a die roll in the middle of battle.

I know what you are saying. But "minor wounds" provide really no threat of loss of life, blood loss, incapacitation for the most part by them alone, etc., etc., so by all true definitions of a minor wound that is what they indeed are.

I think it's just the idea that these minor wounds should slow someone down is why the reduce EML, when most eveidence would point to the contrary.

One change I might make to the tables is throw in a bit more blood loss - this would make more sense.

The other change I would think of - Wound to the forearm are considered fairly minor compared to other areas, including the upper arm. Not that it is as dangerous as say a face hit or similar, but stories and historical evidence shows that the forearm was a dangerous place to be hit, from Roman lopping off forearms with their gladius to the fear the romans had of both the Iberians with their falcatas and the Dacians with their Falx.

IMO, the damage caused by a strike to the forearm should be similar to an upper arm strike. While their is a bit greater chance of blood loss with an upper arm blow, this is compensated by the fact the forearm is less massive and it's easier to get "deep" into the forearm, or worse lop it off.

Not that I want a ton of amputees for PC's , even though this may be realistic, but at least make being hit in the forearm as dangerous as being hit in the upper arm.

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....

Not a bad idea really, kind of what I was thinking. Other than I would make it simpler and just add 5 IP's after a battle.

However, if adrenalin is again flowing in a later battle, these additional 5 IP's for all wounds should again be ignored.

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....

http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/kill2.php

A lot of detailed information regarding the effects of sword wounds on various parts of the body. Lengthy, but an interesting read.

It actually points to wounds to the limbs being more capable of immediately incapacitating an opponent than a thrust that pierces the lung or heart - and that even with the lung or heart pirced, while death will happen at some point, that the majority are not immediatley incapcitated at this point, and death may occur within a few hours or even longer. Some will succumb (failed shcok roll ), but many will continue fighting.

A bleeder that cannot be stopped by traditional medical practices might work well here, but a slow death.

It also points out that with medical practices of the day, a cutting wound that severs tendons may likley result in a permanent cripple.

Historically accurate I guess, but not fun for RPG characters

These are results of rapiers and smallswords, not known for their cutting capabilities, so some of the Harnic weapons with better cutting abilities would have different results. Also, the draw cut is mentioned, which can be devastating but is useless aganst hard armour. TROS has rules that incorporate draw cuts. Pretty well all edged weapons other than perhaps axes can draw cut, some are just better at it than others.

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....

Yeah, we always assume that NPCs fall dead when "killed" but I imagine just about any PC would try to claim they could keep fighting/trigger a device/etc.

K3 yields an E4 (or one die more) normally. On a failed K roll it might make sense to add an extra die (2 dice) to the E-roll and an extra point or two to bleeding rate. For people dying after hours or days it seems like something that would need to be added to the treatment tables as unstopable internal bleeding etc. (I suppose bleeding zero with a failed K-roll could provide that)

I don't know that that would change much IMC especially since I don't penalize K-rolls with general penalty. If you fail a K3 with no penalties the chances of making an E4 or E5 with penalties seems pretty low. Maybe in the beginning of a fight with few/no other injuries.

(For K-rolls I figure all the vital organs remain in the same place and just as protected regardless of how beat up the person gets.)

Of course once a person remains conscious thru a K-roll they could posiably trigger a device or magic item to heal themselves. As far as failing an E-roll goes maybe failing by 3 points or less they are down and stunned rather than unconscious. If they are out but not immediately dead or bleeding to death they could also wake up later before the end - maybe make a fine speech before they die, confess their sins, etc.


(Turin: I meant to ask, how are you using 5 point injury levels with the HM1 charts? Are you using custom charts or doing something else?)

_________________
Member of the CoE (Council of Elitists)

Pretty simple reaslly, minor wound is 1 IL, serious is 3, and grievous is 5. Just the averages. Though from what I have read, 0 IL/2 IL/3 IL would probably be more realistic.



Well, "try to claim they could" seems to be a bit different than this forensic evidence:



Seems like more often than not, a stab through the heart means 5/7 times you make your shock roll, and can function moderately effectively at least for a few rounds.

Now if we look at a killing blow to the heart in HM - its a K3 roll, then an E4 shock roll. Even without injuries, the average person is probably about 60% likley to succumb to shock.

I'd say a K3 kill roll means a E3 shock roll.

Now wounds to the neck appear to be particularily nasty in real life, more likely to incapacitate than about any other wound. HM1 actually prepresents this fairly well.

But one thing to realize about HM injuries/healing - it generalizes a lot of the things together.

For instance, look at if a character falls into shock - they may well die in a period of hours. This could well represent for instance a punture lung and dieing from it hours later.

I just don't think a failed shock roill should make someone unconscious - however, it's a nice bookeeping method to tke someone out of a fight in a RPG.

Look at this account here:



This was a severe wound that caused shock like symptoms, but then a slow and possible total recovery.

Looks like in HM terms, he received a wound which caused a failed shock roll. However, he continued on in combat, and then after combat was over he went into shock, eventually recovering.

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....

After thinking about it a bit, it seems that the Shock roll and recovering from it takes into account a lot of thing like internal bleeding, or things like this:



The only thing about this is that with HM, it makes little difference whether the shock roll that KO'd the character came from a chest wound or a limb wound. With a limb wound, as long as blood loss stops and there is not infection, the character should be OK.

What would be more realistic (not sure how to incorporate into the game or if it would be worth the effort) would be perhaps something more like this:

After failing a shock roll, the character is out of combat maiking one roll per turn per normal HM rules. THis can be considerd truly unconscious, or perhaps more realisitically, just out of combat for that period of time to to physical/mental trauma. The effects would be the same, the character cannot do anything but lie there.

After regaining "conciousness", the character rolls to see if in shock. Roll 3d6 vs endurance, add +2 for any grievous limb wound, add +2 for every serious body/head wound, and +4 for any grievous body/head wound. Also add +1 if bleeding has reduced Blood (endurance) to 1/2, and Add +3 if also unconscious due to blood loss (All Eend points lost to bleeders).

And to the recovery from shock - -10 for any grievous limb wound or serious body/head wound, -20 for any grievous body/head wound, and -5 to -15 for blood loss.

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....

Yeah. I'm thinking that almost any bleeding wound is potentially fatal and allows the character to continue fighting. Perhaps the treatment tables for stopping bleeding to a thorax/abdomen wound is over-generous: a limb wound is much more likely to be treatable to stop bleeding and can use a tourniquet. The types of surgery to stop internal bleeding to the Thorax/Abdomen could be well beyond the ability of a field medic.

If shock recovery is also including a variety of slower internal bleeding complications it mostly leaves Kill-rolls as an instantanious death and/or incapacitation which is how it is mostly treated in the rules already.

We had a fairly one sided combat in our last gaming session with the players hacking up some enemies. Outright kill-roll failures were relatively rare. Most "deaths" resulted from the combination of bleeding+unconsciousness and there were a number of severe bleeding wounds that didn't result in unconsciousness but would fairly clearly result in death in a short peroid of time but allowed for a person to continue to fight and perhaps bring down their opponent before expiring.

Also considering the additional complication of creating new rules to turn the kill-roll into a potential protracted death I'm thinking that continuing to treat k-rolls as instantanious death and/or incapacitation is possibly a better option.


Bill Gant's Gunmaster Rules suggested that the standard HM bloodloss rules result in unconsciousness and death too quickly and suggested 3x and 5x END for unconsciousness and death (instead of 1x and 2x).

_________________
Member of the CoE (Council of Elitists)

Getting hit repeatedly with no effect if the armor values were high enough got me thinking. One thought I had for a modification was that even if armor intercepted all damaging impact that a certain amount of fatigue impact would affect the target. (Kinda like knockback taking effect regardless of armor values.)

For every 5 or 10 points of impact if there was no injury the target would receive 1 point of fatigue.

Also for every 5 or 10 points of impact these same hits would be tracked for costs of armor repair and maintenance later (and/or actually reduce the value of armor protection on the location hit).

Of course each 1 point of fatigue was too small to worry about individually when working with 5 point ILs. After a number of hits though the armor maintenance and fatigue effects could build up to significant levels.

_________________
Member of the CoE (Council of Elitists)

If the front end of HM injuries seem too harsh (shock rolls, various ILs), its back end (healing/infection) are not harsh enough, as HM itself points out.

So, if you tweak in the name of realism the former's effects down, you'd want to ramp up the latter's deadliness.

All in all, however, I'm pretty happy with the current balance (for an RPG, as Turin mentions): the deadlier initial effects make for swifter combat/narrative resolution; the gentler recovery routine throws a bone to the (surviving) PCs.

It's funny, for all of HM's reputation for making it possible for "a character to die from a wound's infection", I've never had it happen and it actually strikes me as a very remote possibility. (I suppose a whole other sub-thread of this thread would be discussing how generously effective the Physician skill is...)

Player characters in my campaigns have died from infected wounds with HM1. The usual culprit is bad healing rolls and the fact that each wound heals with a separate roll each day (it makes good the probability of at least one bad roll to occur per day). Plus I generally don't write games with bias to character survival, but to very strict natural and logical consequences - ie, they may not be able to afford a good physician, nor will necessarily one be one of their friends who would do the job for the price of materials alone...

I guess it's all in the manner in which the game is run. If the GM really secretly intends for the PCs to succeed and survive, they will, since somewhere the right resources will be available at the right times. If the GM really secretly intends to slaughter the PCs, it is far too easy to do so in HM. I find it hardest to have a completely realistically neutral approach to GMing HM, but it being the most rewarding, in my opinion. And so far, it hasn't been disappointing to my players...

One thing here Feanor - With the idea I have for a 1 IL wound doing nothing as far as IP's, it Still will effect E/S/F/ rolls, just like fatigue would. The only difference is that there is no EML penalty.

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....

As they have in mine.

Funny, I was bitten by a stray cat we took in Wednesday. A very very minor wound. Treated it with topical antibiotics, but by this weekend the hand had swollen up greatly and was almost unusable. Got some oral antibiotics at an urgent care facility, it's doing better but still very painful. Tried hitting a softball using it and I swung one time and had some intense pain and gave up trying to use it.

I probably would have went septic had I not gotten the oral prescription. And that could have been fatal. Was rather shocking to me, but it made me think how many could have died from very minor wounds prior to modern medicine . I guess I could have let it progress further and done some real infection research, but I'm not that dedicated to the research

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....

You have a good point here, McBard.

HMG is IMO in some ways more realistic. The stun is far more common than the KO. However, this means the players will remain upright but take far more damage, particularily if you use the Stun rule where defense is an ignore. The problem here is that the characters while remaining upright longer have a much greater chance of death after combat. More realistic perhaps, but worse for character survivability.

The other problem is there is no real "morale" rule in combat with HMG - an NPC might continue fighting with a handful of serious wounds, where in reality at some point they might decide they have had enough and quit the battle. The rules that cause players to pass out easier due to failed E rolls in HM1/C/3 function a bit in essence as morale rules - depending on how literally you take them. If you look at it as they may "quit the fight" but not necessarily pass out - this actually prevents everone from fighting til their body is so hacked up that they die afterwards.

If I were to tweak HM1 injury tables and rules for more realism (and to still have playability), I'd probably do this:

1) Shock rolls maybe max out around 3D for most wounds (head and neck probably would stay about the same)
2) Minor wounds no effect on EML, serious wounds -10, grievous wounds -20.
3) Penalties for wounds already there for shock rolls - +1 for minor, +3 serious, +5 grievous.
4) Bleeding wounds would be more common
5) On whether or not one is in shock upon awakening from a KO - Same as penalties for shock rolls, but -2 for limb wounds (i.e no penalty for minor limb wounds, +1 for a serious limb wound, +3 for a grievous one)
6) This is one major difference, and seems to be realistic based on the information I posted about the effects of wounds on the human body -

After combat is over, even if the player did not fail an E roll, they roll for Every Serious or worse Head/Torso wound, or for every grievous limb wound. Roll at 3D6+1 for every serious Head/Torso or Grievous limb wound - roll 3d6+5 for a grievous head/torso wound.

If the roll excedes endurance, the character lapses into a catastonic shock-like state after combat is over, and heals normally per shock rules.

This mimics situations like where Lord Kilmaurs was perfectly capable of continuing combat after a pierced lung - but collapsed after the comabt was over (and eventually recovered).

Any thoughts? The idea of rule #6 is a bit rough and off the top of my head, but could certainly be modified.

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....

I noticed last night that in HMG healing rolls are penalized by physical penalty!

That seems pretty brutal. Dealing with a half a dozen serious wounds all healing at 4 or 5xEND-50 EML. Infections are far more certain and wounds much slower to heal...

I haven't tried it but it seems unlikely for a person to survive that without benefit of herbs and an attending physician to add 1/2 physican EML to the healing rolls and help with infection.

_________________
Member of the CoE (Council of Elitists)

I tend to prefer a single roll with physical penalty to multiple rolls for every injury.

If shock is to come into play much than I think descriptive effects of shock at the different levels is needed - and entering into shock at different levels depending on the degree of injury and roll failure. Shock can range from stumbling around semi-coherent (S5) to flat-out unconscious and about to die (S1).

_________________
Member of the CoE (Council of Elitists)

Yeah, I do not reduce by physical penalty. A serious wound with a HR of 3 means a 33% Chance to heal - and a 13% chance per healing roll of getting infected at HR2, which is pretty surefire chance of death. This is even if the first roll is a MS or CS to avoid infection in the first place.

I like the idea of only a CF on the first roll means infection, and no physical penalty to healing rolls. Is that an optional rules perhaps?

Realistically - I'd think that minot wounds should become infected on a CF, serious/Grievous on an initial MF. Or at least serious/grievous chest/ab wounds, punturing the chest cavity or abdominal wall often resulted in infection.

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....

Warflail's GunMaster Gold has a "morale" skill in it... quite useful, and not only in combat.

Indeed, the master skill list I use for HM is the one from GMG...

Full of great stuff!

Morale is indeed a huge factor in combat. And in a real life middle ages combat situation, morale is the one thing that keeps casualties low when balanced with weapon lethality and porr medical practices

Seriously though, I think a comatant stood a much greater chance of running away then being seriously injured.

Only problem with morale - it unfortunately is an extras die roll, which of course slows things down. If trying to use any type of morale factors in combat, I use Initiative with situational mods.

Problem is, you should probably test morale at the start of combat, after the combatant receives anything but a minor wound or is stunned, and then if their compatriots begin dropping or fleeing.

You can look at failed shock rolls as someone dropping out of combat - maybe the rolls are to high (too many dice) based upon forensic evidence, but if I rationalize it as not only shock but also fear it makes more sense.

HMG is probably more realistic with it's shock rolls - as a stun is 4x more likley than a KO. Only problem for me here - without any morale rules, the characters (NPC's in particular) will fight on and on til everyone is pretty hacked up. Combined with rules for infection and it can make for a pretty short character lifespan.

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....

I use the GunMaster Gold combat skill of Morale to test the resolve of a combatant to face their opponent. One roll prior to combat's immediate start, then every time a significant wound - serious or better - is scored or when the combat odds regarding number of opponents changes (eg an ally drops in battle, or another ally appears to assist)... Marginal Failure means the combatant will try to flee at first practical opportunity; Critical Failure means an immediate disengagement and route. Morale is affected by wound EML penalties and the outnumbering modifier, but not by fatigue, nor encumbrance, in the way I run things.

I use the HM1 version of Initiative (sum of End, Dex, Agl, Spd, Wil), but with a house rule of the addition of a d10 roll each round of combat. This Initiative value is subject to physical penalty in my games, and reflects who gets first strike in the combat round; or "declares their combat option last, but takes their action first"... If one combatant's current Initiative rating is MORE than double that of the opponent's, I allow a second attack in that round against the same opponent provided a one vs one fight, and that the extra attack occurs AFTER the opponent's attack opportunity; this second attack is treated as if a Tactical Advantage were scored (see below), and is defended at half EML of whatever defense the opponent chooses to muster.

I use the HM1 damage tables, and treat shock rolls as exactly what the term entails - the person is in shock (not necessarily unconscious, but clammy skin, racing heartbeat, blood pressure problems, etc) and is effectively unable to defend further attacks. Usually in the next round I will have a healing roll for the shock be attempted; if this one fails, the person in shock faints into unconsciousness in addition to the other symptoms of the condition. If the healing roll succeeds, the person recovers enough wits to try to flee the scene to a place of apparent safety, and is able to defend at HALF EML en route. If this safety cannot be reached in one round, each subsequent round forces another roll to see if the person faints and falls to the ground, or manages to continue.

Incidentally, for shock rolls, I use a "Stamina" attribute rating (I mentioned it elsewhere in the forum), which is a combination of Str, End, and Wil, and can be raised (in decimal point increments) through the use of the Condition skill from GunMaster Gold. This allows for the notion that a person may actually "train" to be more resilient in battle conditions, and that it involves complete physical power (the Str & End) as well as a component of willpower (Wil) to stay conscious. I also use this Stamina rating for encumbrance and fatigue rate calculation, although fatigue recover utilizes End alone.

Physical Penalty applies to all combat skill EMLs, Initiative, and Mobility, as well as any physical skill uses and lore/craft skills that have a physical attribute in their SB calculation, as well as against all spell casting (including religious ritual invocations) and psionics. Pretty much everything else is unaffected. Endurance Index penalty applies to shock rolls.

With regard to wound effects, I apply the HM1 table pretty much directly as it is. I have wounds from slash, pierce, and such attacks that are under the 5 required on the table to have still overcome the armor (if the armor wasn't breached, there would be no net damage, in my logic), but these wounds are such that they are minor without any other consequence. In other words, the only reason for the 5+ notation is that at these levels special conditions may happen at various hit locations.

To contend with the multiple damage results that may have no effect otherwise, I apply a sort of "maximum damage to the body" rating, using the Condition skill ML as the threshold. Once the total damage from wounds exceeds this amount (not fatigue or encumbrance), the body automatically begins to go into shock with immediate, and every minute thereafter, required shock rolls beginning at "e3" until the person faints or begins to receive treatment for their wounds. (Once the treatment process begins, these rolls are stopped.) The basis for this is that all wounds result in "blood loss", although the ones with special BP loss according to the chart are those that are the spurting kind from arteries, or the free flow from major veins. Multiple small wounds can also result in equivalent loss of blood, although it would be scarcely noticed until the person feels faint - which is what this house rule takes into account.

For damage rolls, I use a change in base die to be rolled according to strength and size of the attacker. If their Stamina is higher than their strength, I use that instead. (Another reason for special training.) [I forget which article I read that inspired this, but it answered my question of how greater than usual strength should have a direct impact on combat.] This is in addition to the increased base damage for heavier weapons wieldable by stronger individuals...

The only other big combat rule I adjusted was the number of Tactical Advantages in a person's TURN of a round that they could have - up to 2 from the usual maximum of 1. The exploitation of the first TA is defended against at half defense EML; if this results in a second TA, the exploitation of this second one is defended against only with Ignore. The assumption is based on how "out of position" the defender is to mount an effective response. The upshot of this is that it is best to learn the best defense against a particular kind of attack, and not just choose block or dodge each time...

Most everything else in relation to combat is by the book HM1 in my way of running things, especially the wound healing system and other kinds of damage/injury conditions - poison, disease, infection, etc... With the exception that any wound treatment that calls for "surgery" isn't addressed with the usual Physician roll, but the Surgery skill from GMG; no surgery if the wound calls for it is "no treatment" for effect...

Combat in my HM games is usually a bloody affair not to be undertaken lightly. As I have mentioned elsewhere, to play in my HM games as if in a D&D game will get you killed really fast...

ps - also note that if the character is overweight, the amount of pounds that the character has beyond what is proper for their frame and height is placed directly against weight carried, and therefore counts into encumbrance and fatigue rate... (This was inspired by my own realization that being a sort of "fatty" myself in real life, that I am not as quick as others more fit than me...)

Long list of rules to comment on, but I just mioght say your rules in some ways are similar to mine - or at least addresss some of the same issues.

I do not like trainable condition though, I think the "morale" aspect of it is trainable, the ability of the body itself to take damage not so much.

I have thought about making Fatigue, and possible Strength trainable to a point - make the attribute x5 the current "ML", and trainable to a maximum of (100+current ML)/2, which means a 3 Fatigue player could train to a max of 13, but an 18 fatigue type could only train to a 19. The higher beginning stats types have reached more to their potentail I guess



I like this idea, similar to some thoughts I had on shock. I may use it. Do you roll against the Dice of the wound calling the failed shock roll?



I use a strength aspect increasing damage, but a bit different. an 18 strength type may get +2 damage - but only with a heavy weapon. If using a normal weapon, it's limited to +1.

Actually, most of my rolls come from the idea of Warflail that ML means everything. So you can take a -30 to ML to add 3 to your strike - makes sense to me, a better trained swordsman can hit better than a novice of the same strength. I also allow aimed blows.



Good idea. Unlimited TA's allow perhaps too many moves. I've used -20 defending from TA's - same idea. The ignore from a second sounds interesting. I like -20 better than 1/2 for two reasons - #1, simpler math. #2, it makes a 100ML far better than a 50ML - which makes heroes more "heroic".



Use pretty much the same rules - but I have yet to find a PC that wants to play "Bognar the Fat"

I add 1% to body weight for every point of strength over 10 - but Heavy is only +8%, massive +16%, but I do not have frame effect agility - I don't think it does in real life. Many to sprinters are actually somewhat massive. Being fat of course is a far different story. And "usable" strength is the average of the characters strength score and a "size" score (Based on average weight of 155 pounds being a 11, size for human maxes at about 22), so larger types are stronger than smaller ones as a pretty much rule of thumb. Same applies to Gargun and Khuzdhul, but they are a bit taller than in canon).

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....