[Triff]

Originally Posted by Dredj

RPG Shop: Role Playing Games, Miniatures, Dice, War Games, Board Games, Paints, and more!

The ones I bought say "torso" instead of "stomach".

It looks like 8 sides go to the extremities, that is 2/3, the same as with a d6, so it's probably not that big a difference.

Originally Posted by Jason Durall

The only issues I see are:

1. You'd have to conflate the abdomen and chest hit locations to just "body"

Yes, that's an issue, I agree. I'm not sure it's that big an issue though.

2. The current spread of locations takes into account some factors like size of hit location and likelihood of hitting during hand-to-hand combat, with the missile hit location spread handling ranged combat. Having every hit location be the same chance (just over 16%) negates that.

d20 melee: legs 40%, abdom+chest 20%, arms 30%, head 10%
d6 loc dice: legs 33%, body 16,7, arms 33%, head 16,7%.
I can't really say one spread is more likely than the other. I think the d20 spread might have a bit high percentages for the legs compared to the rest of the body, and maybe a bit little for the head. I can't say the d20 is "better" in melee though.

For missile, yes realism would drop a bit, as most missiles are aimed for the body. However, having two d20 missile locations tables to slow things down a bit. For hightened realism using the d6, you could say that any hit with a missile weapon that was an odd number went for the body, and even numbers rolled the dice. This would lead to higher casualties though.

I've always liked the Warhammer FRP system, where the hit roll result is flipped and the same value used for the hit location. For example, if you hit someone with a roll of 37, you have a hit location roll of 73. Makes for one fewer dice rolls.

A d100 hit location table?

SGL.