CT Only: Possible reinterpretation of the "First Blood" rule

[Golan2072]

A though has occurred to me - instead of simply saying (as per the rules) that the first shot anyone gets hit with in combat uses the First Blood rule (i.e. all dice damage the same characteristic, and surplus damage overflows to other characteristics). you can slightly modify the rule so that it gets used every time a combatant has "the drop" on an unprepared target. People who are prepared for being shot at try to move, take cover etc, so causing a significant wound to them is difficult. On the other hand, a target unprepared (or unaware) to someone trying to hit it will be a much easier target.

So you have the CT "sneak attack"/backstab rule right here.

Just use the rule of a thumb - if the target expects getting shot/swinged at, use the regular damage rules. If it doesn't, use the First Blood rule.

 

[Supplement Four]

Mechanically, the First Blood rule exists so that any shot is capable of dropping an opponent. In other words, it keeps combat scary.

3D is average damage.
7 is the average stat.

If you've got a straight average character, 777777, and he's hit by even maximum damage, 666, the character will only sustain a Minor wound if the normal system is allowed where the defending player assigns damage dice to his character's stats. Obviously, he would put one die into each physical stat, resulting in 111777.

With the First Blood rule, max damage from an average 3D weapon will put a Serious Wound on a character. Depending on my random roll (Let's say it was STR), the character would end up looking like this: 003777.

Even with average 3D damage of 343 (10 points), the First Blood rule will take the average character out of the combat with a Minor Wound and unconsciousness: 047777.

Thus, the First Blood rule should keep characters very weary of engaging in combat. Players will respect combat when, on the first round of combat, their characters will likely be Seriously wounded or knocked unconscious.





If the character is lucky, and damage is low, the character will survive the First Blood rule with just a Minor Wound. Maybe something like this: 3D damage is 123, applied randomly to STR, resulting in 177777.

After the First Blood rule is applied, it no longer applies again, because, with a damaged character, combat is still dangerous. Now, with reduced stats, the defending player can apply wound dice to his character's physicals, but it's tricky now that the stats are lowered. Combat remains scary.





Applying this to the question/proposition in the OP: I don't think changing the First Blood rule is necessary unless the goal is just to make the game more lethal.

The average result of combat in CT, given the official rules, is a character that is knocked unconscious (rather than dead).

This is kinda a counter point to the First Blood rule. Combat is deadly, but it's not likely to kill off PCs. Instead, combat is likely to wound and knock the character out of the combat by knocking him unconscious.

Average Damage of 3D: 343 (10 points), applied randomly to average character (STR first), results in 037777.

Result: This character is knocked unconscious with a Minor Wound. He regains consciousness 10 minutes later, and half an hour after that, provided a Medic-1 is around, will be fully healed in 30 minutes.

Mechanical result: Combat is scary, but it is not likely to kill your character. PCs live on to continue the campaign.

 

[mike wightman]

I use the first blood rule as a critical result and as an "aim for a vital location" action result.

The latter is usually only possible if you have the element of surprise or you want to take no other defensive/movement actions than aim - which makes you much more likely to be hit by incoming fire.

 

[Vargas]

Thus, the First Blood rule should keep characters very weary of engaging in combat.

[pedant] It's wary, not weary.[/pedant]

 

[Carlobrand]

Thus, the First Blood rule should keep characters very weary of engaging in combat.

[pedant] It's wary, not weary.[/pedant]

Not if your gamemaster likes to throw you into combat a lot.

 

[rancke]

Thus, the First Blood rule should keep characters very [wary] of engaging in combat. Players will respect combat when, on the first round of combat, their characters will likely be Seriously wounded or knocked unconscious.

Which is a problem if you prefer a more cinematic play style.


Hans

 

[atpollard]

Which is a problem if you prefer a more cinematic play style.

Hans

This is how I see it as well.
Either version of the First Blood rule could work, they just create a very different 'feel' to combat.
So the trick is to match the rule to the desired style of play.

Deadly combat for a gritty realism game.
Surprise bonus for a cinematic game.

 

[Supplement Four]

Which is a problem if you prefer a more cinematic play style.

Without it, players know, with some certainty, that their characters can take at least one hit without any real danger to the character.

Sure, that's an alternate style of play. I like a lot of combat too, but I also use the First Blood rule as written, forcing the players to respect combat and think of it as a dangerous activity. Instead, they try not to get shot by using Evade when they move, moving from and to cover, and using armor when they can.

 

[Baron]

Ah, but isn't the question whether the rationale makes sense? A way to model "getting the drop on" a target, and a reflection in the rules?

The explanation sounds reasonable, and I'd be willing to give it a try.

 

[Carlobrand]

Without it, players know, with some certainty, that their characters can take at least one hit without any real danger to the character. ...

Ergo cinematic. You get players doing things you only ever see in the movies 'cause they know they can get away with it.

"Captain Scarlet, tum ta tum ta tum ..." :devil:

 

[Supplement Four]

Ergo cinematic. You get players doing things you only ever see in the movies 'cause they know they can get away with it.

"Captain Scarlet, tum ta tum ta tum ..." :devil:

"Cinematic" can mean a lot of things.

There's the Roger Moore era of James Bond. That's one type of cinematic (and one that I think would agree with the players not fearing combat at all because they know that there's a great chance they will survive it and a pretty good chance that they won't even be hurt.

Then, there's the newer, more grittier James Bond that started with the Daniel Craig films. Still "cinematic", but a real feeling that the hero can get hurt or even killed if he doesn't watch himself.

I prefer the latter. I find the former boring (and so do players, I think, in the long run--otherwise, why have hit points at all? Why track damage? It's to put the element of risk into the game to make it fun. Take out that risk, and the game isn't as fun).

 

[Carlobrand]

"Cinematic" can mean a lot of things.

There's the Roger Moore era of James Bond. That's one type of cinematic (and one that I think would agree with the players not fearing combat at all because they know that there's a great chance they will survive it and a pretty good chance that they won't even be hurt.

Then, there's the newer, more grittier James Bond that started with the Daniel Craig films. Still "cinematic", but a real feeling that the hero can get hurt or even killed if he doesn't watch himself.

I prefer the latter. I find the former boring (and so do players, I think, in the long run--otherwise, why have hit points at all? Why track damage? It's to put the element of risk into the game to make it fun. Take out that risk, and the game isn't as fun).

True. "Cinematic" covers a lotta ground. I don't know so much for the boring. Good ol' D&D played to the Captain Scarlet style of play, right down to the coming back from the dead bit, and it was a lot of fun - but the Big Bad was just as resilient as you, if not more so. Risk was still there. And most important, it was fantasy.

In sci fi, if you're unarmored and the guy with the shotgun has the drop on you, you expect anything that ends with the guy pulling the trigger to hurt like the dickens. Not dead is good, if the rolls lean that way. Not dead is very good; you thank your lucky stars. But definitely if the script says, "bad guy pulls the trigger," you expect to be spending some quality time with the medic afterward. It's sci fi - shotguns hurt.

Still, it's ever so much nicer if you can wake up the next day.

 

[Golan2072]

Ah, but isn't the question whether the rationale makes sense? A way to model "getting the drop on" a target, and a reflection in the rules?

The explanation sounds reasonable, and I'd be willing to give it a try.

Excellent! Please do tell me how it went in actual play.

 

[Dagrill]

True. "Cinematic" covers a lotta ground. I don't know so much for the boring. Good ol' D&D played to the Captain Scarlet style of play, right down to the coming back from the dead bit, and it was a lot of fun - but the Big Bad was just as resilient as you, if not more so. Risk was still there. And most important, it was fantasy.

In sci fi, if you're unarmored and the guy with the shotgun has the drop on you, you expect anything that ends with the guy pulling the trigger to hurt like the dickens. Not dead is good, if the rolls lean that way. Not dead is very good; you thank your lucky stars. But definitely if the script says, "bad guy pulls the trigger," you expect to be spending some quality time with the medic afterward. It's sci fi - shotguns hurt.

Still, it's ever so much nicer if you can wake up the next day.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here ad to a certain extent it depends on the type of player you are dealing with and the storyline as well.

Kind Regards

David