RPG's need an overhaul

[Dis]

I love RPG's, I even love the AD&D system . Even with all its flaws- and there are many.

The biggest flaw in RPG's imho is character levels. Although hitpoints is a close second. Hitpoints is often associated with character levels so they go together.

Yes I know hitpoints reflect a characters ability to dodge and avoid damage better. But this is reflected in dexterity for most systems.

I just don't think it's good (I won't use realistic since rpg's are set in fantasy or sci-fi most of the time) that hitpoints go up so quickly. Why can a level 20 fighter absorb so much more damage than a level 1 fighter?

My guess is most people like numbers. And they like to inflict large amounts of numbers. Myself included. When I see things like 10D6 of damage, I salivate. It wouldn't be as dramatic if higher level spells had advantages over lower level spells of only being able to bypass saving throws better, or negate dexterity saves.

Character levels really take a lot out of a rpg. But if a character is static, that makes the game essentually an adventure game right? Obviously a character should improve over time. But I say to limit that improvement. Physcial damage should be modelled more realistically based on creature size and biology.

The thing about levels is it really turns many rpg's into kill-fests. Diablo suffers from this. And as far as I can tell, Everquest also suffers from this- I've never actually played it.

Surely there is a better system out there isn't there? I have a few ideas running around my head, but I'm not sure if I can explain them adequately here. Writing was never my strong point.

[Dis]

The biggest thing I would like is to see the elimination of character levels.

Why not just have skills improve over time ala Morrowind. Though morrowind also has levels . And I don't like the level up feature of Morrorwind very much. But it's a start.

[vmxa1]

Put me in the I like to level up group please.

[Asmodean]

Couldn't you say that the number of hitpoints represent more than just the ability to absorb damage?

I mean...it's obvious (at least if you try to take the realistic point of view) that a strong fighter can not take 6-8 times as much damage as a weak fighter. But then what? Well let's say that he is 6-8 times better at avoiding stabs, while at the same time watching his own back and slashing out at his opponent.

As you said, the is represented in dexterity. But let's broaden the perspective. What if hitpoints also represent the fact that his greater combat experience makes him know where to take a hit, if he can see that a hit is unavoidable? And that he can stomach pain easier. If you use this system, you can represent his incurred DAM as not just damage. This enables you to look at DAM as a factor of "time/luck is running out for the fighter".

I know this opens up a whole new can of worms, because if this is the case, then what about the need to heal. But let's not go there today, shall we?

I see what you mean, Diss. And up to a point, I agree with you. But at the moment, I can not envision anything better than the current system.

Asmodean

[Jamski]

I live to level up. Its a reward for the hard work you have been through. I used to play with a DM who insisted that when I leveled up, I had to find a "master" who would be able to increase my skills. That was a PAIN.

But everyone likes to get another d8+x hitpoints or more spells.

-Jam

[Sore Loser]

I think a greater problem is the killing-monsters-is-good-because-that-gives-my-character-XP mentality. Any sensible warrior would know that you don't kill out of malice, as there is a risk of fatalities. Ideally, advancement should depend on entirely different factors. These can be unknown to the player or even be 100% up to the DM's judgement.

[General Ludd]

I agree dissident. There should be character advancement, but it should be much more subtle than it usually is.

[Skanky Burns]

Levelling up with a *large* tangible result is your reward for playing well. Subtle levelling leads to an "Oh well, another level. Whooop de dooo" feeling.

[General Ludd]

I play RPGs because I like to roleplay. Powergamers can stick to diablo, thanks.

[Sandman]

Good thread idea.

My wishlist:

An end, forever, to trashy adversaries. No more fighting mice, rats, bats, crows etc. Unless there are hordes of them, Indiana Jones style.

Less complicated magical systems, without tons of redundant spells that are never used. I'd also like a mage type character that can use magic repeatly without needing to recharge. Most RPGs provide the opportunity for potion abuse anyway, so why not just get rid of mana altogether?

More complicated physical combat systems, with more moves available than just 'attack'. Throws, grapples, punches, low attacks, high attacks, defence, disarm, decapitations, trips, etc. Almost moving into beat-em-up territory, in fact.

Try to replace hit-points. Deus Ex's area specific damage system was good, I'd use that. Make armour area specific as well. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that armour should only protect those areas of the body which are covered by it. So no more protecting one's hands by wearing bracers. Also, plate armour should only be available for special occasions.

More swords. Fewer bashing weapons. Swords triumphed historically over every other melee weapon for general usage. I'd like to see an RPG brave enough to acknowledge this fact.

Lessen the impact of levels, and place more emphasis on player skill. It's satisfying to level up, but that doesn't compare to the feeling of gaining REAL skill.

[Richard Bruns]

Originally posted by Dissident
Surely there is a better system out there isn't there? I have a few ideas running around my head, but I'm not sure if I can explain them adequately here. Writing was never my strong point.

Yes, that system is called GURPS. It has no levels, and hit pints are basically fixed at the beginning based on biology. You can read about it at http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/ Download the "GURPS Lite" document to learn the rules.

[Dis]

well I just had some ideas running around my head like defense values and such. These would go up as you gain experience. I would like to see dexterity play more of a part.

Let's put it this way. Why should a level 20 fighter with a dexterity of 8 avoid damage better than a level 1 fighter with a dexterity of 8?

Dexterity should have more of a meaning for fighter classes in D&D. I know it gives an A/C bonus. But I don't like A/C all that much anyways. I'm sure there is a better way.

some interesting ideas here. Keep them coming.

I like more complicated phsical combat systems. I wouldn't want to make it too complicated. But there should be something more than just attack. Playing a fighter in NWN isn't all that interesting. Sure you have power attack (which I find useless), disarm, and knockdown. But there isn't much variation in their strategy.

And yes most experience should be gained by solving quests. Though I still think monsters should give some experience- esp. tough ones like dragons. What would be interesting is to have monsters give diminishing returns. After killing 50 bugbears, are you really learning anything knew by killing another one?

[Urban Ranger]

Most paper and pencil RPGs don't have levels, hit points, and those antiquated contraptions and concepts anymore. Its harder for CRPGs, but a lot can be attributed to laziness on developers' part. The only really difficult part is granting experience. Sure, a part can come from quests, but completing quests should only give characters bonus experiences, the lion's chunk need to come from them attempting various things. Which is pretty much things in RL work.

[The Mad Monk]

Megatraveller had a system that did experience fairly well, at least by my reckoning. It allowed for learning and improving skills by training, by actually using them "in the field", and by observing others use a given skill.

Combat was nasty. If played "properly", players tended to shy away from all-out street battles and the like, because such could leave one very dead, very quickly.
The biggest problem was that, in an effort to provide an extremely flexible vehicle design system that could cover starships and mopeds, submarines and dirigibles from ancient times into the far future, they made the smaller ones much too fragile. As in, you could total a small car with a single shot from a .32 revolver.

[Traianvs]

More complicated physical combat systems, with more moves available than just 'attack'. Throws, grapples, punches, low attacks, high attacks, defence, disarm, decapitations, trips, etc. Almost moving into beat-em-up territory, in fact.

I second that

Lessen the impact of levels, and place more emphasis on player skill. It's satisfying to level up, but that doesn't compare to the feeling of gaining REAL skill.

That wouldn't work. Because if you're an experienced player, and you start a game from zero, you are already skilled! The opponents at the start of the game will not be a challenge whatsoever.

There would be no replayability in that case.


There should be created a few enemies/challenges at the start of the game that you can't handle yet. For example put a few dragons in a cave near Beregost in BG1
I had the impression a bit that most of the quests early on were made just for that: low level characters... there were not much quests that couldn't be solved with my character back then!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Megatraveller had a system that did experience fairly well, at least by my reckoning. It allowed for learning and improving skills by training, by actually using them "in the field", and by observing others use a given skill.

Combat was nasty. If played "properly", players tended to shy away from all-out street battles and the like, because such could leave one very dead, very quickly.
The biggest problem was that, in an effort to provide an extremely flexible vehicle design system that could cover starships and mopeds, submarines and dirigibles from ancient times into the far future, they made the smaller ones much too fragile. As in, you could total a small car with a single shot from a .32 revolver.

Not familar with the Megatraveller system, but Champions (aka Hero Systems) also has a very nice system. Combat is much less bloody, and the flaw is just opposite of Megatraveller's. That is, low "level" characters and small vehicles tend to be too tough.

[Grumbold]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Sandman
Good thread idea.

My wishlist:

An end, forever, to trashy adversaries. No more fighting mice, rats, bats, crows etc. Unless there are hordes of them, Indiana Jones style.[quote]

amen

Less complicated magical systems, without tons of redundant spells that are never used. I'd also like a mage type character that can use magic repeatly without needing to recharge. Most RPGs provide the opportunity for potion abuse anyway, so why not just get rid of mana altogether?

Dumb down too much and you might as well play Diablo or Dungeon Siege

More complicated physical combat systems, with more moves available than just 'attack'. Throws, grapples, punches, low attacks, high attacks, defence, disarm, decapitations, trips, etc. Almost moving into beat-em-up territory, in fact.

Going in the opposite direction here.

Try to replace hit-points. Deus Ex's area specific damage system was good, I'd use that. Make armour area specific as well. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that armour should only protect those areas of the body which are covered by it. So no more protecting one's hands by wearing bracers. Also, plate armour should only be available for special occasions.

People who could afford plate armor wore it any time they were in tournaments and on the battlefield. You'd have to be silly to leave it behind unless you were planning to swim the moat or fight in a swamp. Sure you shouldn't sleep in it ....

More swords. Fewer bashing weapons. Swords triumphed historically over every other melee weapon for general usage. I'd like to see an RPG brave enough to acknowledge this fact.

Most designers would anticipate a tide of complaint from players whose favourite weapon type was not represented. Swords triumphed because they were pretty easy to make and gain a modest level of skill in. The people who had time and money to train got expertise in a variety of weapons.

Lessen the impact of levels, and place more emphasis on player skill. It's satisfying to level up, but that doesn't compare to the feeling of gaining REAL skill.

FPS are mainly about player skill. RPGs are mainly about character skill. A lot of what you are asking for sounds more appropriate in something that fantasy version of Doom ...Heretic? A few quick spells and lots of hack'n'slash.

[Sore Loser]

Ideas: The effectiveness of a given weapon depends not only on the quality of the armour, but also the type. Meaning that chain mail is fairly resistant to slashing weapons, but below par against piercing and bashing weapons.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sandman
Less complicated magical systems, without tons of redundant spells that are never used.

Less complicated in what way? I have always thought the AD&D-esque system is dead simple. Just remember a whole bunch of spells, there's nothing else you need to do.

Originally posted by Sandman
I'd also like a mage type character that can use magic repeatly without needing to recharge.

That doesn't make sense at all. Fighters can't keep fighting all day, they get tired. So do mages.

Originally posted by Sandman
Most RPGs provide the opportunity for potion abuse anyway, so why not just get rid of mana altogether?

That's the problem with these games having a sloppy design.

Originally posted by Sandman
More complicated physical combat systems, with more moves available than just 'attack'. Throws, grapples, punches, low attacks, high attacks, defence, disarm, decapitations, trips, etc. Almost moving into beat-em-up territory, in fact.

There all sorts of RPGs with some having a very simple combat system and others having complicated ones.

Originally posted by Sandman
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that armour should only protect those areas of the body which are covered by it. So no more protecting one's hands by wearing bracers.

These bracers could be magical

Seriously, I am a bit puzzled. You want to simply the combat system, but want to have specific areas for armour protection and damage - in fact, very specific locations.

Originally posted by Sandman
Also, plate armour should only be available for special occasions.

Indeed. However, you don't think adventurers are common peasants or men-at-arms, do you?

[Jon Miller]

I generally find the combat in PnP RPGs boring and too complicated

maybe if it was more strategic

JOn Miller

[Sandman]

That wouldn't work. Because if you're an experienced player, and you start a game from zero, you are already skilled! The opponents at the start of the game will not be a challenge whatsoever.

There would be no replayability in that case.

True enough. Although even if player experience doesn't directly matter, I'd be surprised if you find the foes at the start of an RPG you've completed particularly difficult.

In both cases, it can be solved with well thought-out difficulty levels.

People who could afford plate armor wore it any time they were in tournaments and on the battlefield. You'd have to be silly to leave it behind unless you were planning to swim the moat or fight in a swamp. Sure you shouldn't sleep in it ....

Tournaments and battlefields are special occasions. But it's silly to be able to wander the countryside wearing full plate armour. I suppose, however, that heros could be considered strong enough to wear it constantly.

Most designers would anticipate a tide of complaint from players whose favourite weapon type was not represented.

That's why I said it would be brave to do it. There is plenty of variety within swords (even just one region) to sustain an RPG. And how many morningstar fanboys are out there, really?

Swords triumphed because they were pretty easy to make and gain a modest level of skill in. The people who had time and money to train got expertise in a variety of weapons.

I'd say that swords are considerably more difficult to make than bashing weapons, and require at least as much skill. And they certainly held more prestige than most bashing weapons.

FPS are mainly about player skill. RPGs are mainly about character skill. A lot of what you are asking for sounds more appropriate in something that fantasy version of Doom ...Heretic? A few quick spells and lots of hack'n'slash.

That's your opinion. I don't see genres as mutually exclusive, and I don't see RPGs as necessarily having some sort of stat-building. If you insist that all RPGs must have character development, then I must insist that the genre be given a more appropriate name, like stat-builders or something. Because I don't see how raising levels can be considered role-playing.

I doubt that an FPS would be much good at providing an expanded combat system. The physical attack system of Morrowind was as crude as any other RPG.

Less complicated in what way? I have always thought the AD&D-esque system is dead simple. Just remember a whole bunch of spells, there's nothing else you need to do.

There are too many spells. Mage characters are like a swiss army knife with over a hundred implements. I'd like to see spells amalgamated. For example, instead of having a lock-picking spell, a spell to pick up faraway objects and levitation spell, just have a standard telekinesis spell that's context dependant. It makes sense for someone that's able to move objects with their mind to be able to pick locks with it as well.

That doesn't make sense at all. Fighters can't keep fighting all day, they get tired. So do mages.

In all the RPGs I've played, tiredness is an afterthought that rarely comes into play. And as you say later on, these aren't just normal peasants, are they?

I guess my gripe is with the idea of the fighter characters with (practically) unlimited generic 'attacks', and limited use swiss army knife mages.

That's the problem with these games having a sloppy design.

Okay, what's your take on the mana/potions situation?

There all sorts of RPGs with some having a very simple combat system and others having complicated ones.

But would you deny that the majority of RPGs have very simple combat systems?

Seriously, I am a bit puzzled. You want to simply the combat system, but want to have specific areas for armour protection and damage - in fact, very specific locations.

It's to add realism. I don't see the problem, really. Instead of a generic armour rating, I suggest a more complicated system based on armour coverage and so on. In practice, it would be similar to a generic armour rating, except a bit more random, and it would also give the player more interesting wounds to deal with.

Indeed. However, you don't think adventurers are common peasants or men-at-arms, do you?

Yes, I admit that. Just trying to think out of the box, that's all.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sandman
There are too many spells. Mage characters are like a swiss army knife with over a hundred implements. I'd like to see spells amalgamated.

Some p'n'p systems already have that. For example, Role Master runs on spell lists. As a character advances in level, his spells become more potent. Also, not CFPRGs are like that. Wizardry mages don't have a lot of spells. Neither are ones in Ultima IIRC.

Originally posted by Sandman
For example, instead of having a lock-picking spell, a spell to pick up faraway objects and levitation spell, just have a standard telekinesis spell that's context dependant. It makes sense for someone that's able to move objects with their mind to be able to pick locks with it as well.

Hm, none of these are necessarily telekinesis, as they are all magical spells. They may mimic the effects of telekinesis, though the latter generally falls in the realm of psionics or mentalism, and may not be available in a FRPG.

Even if TK is available, such as in Champions, it specifically states that TK cannot do fine manipulation, which is what lockpicking is.

At any rate, making spells function differently depending on the situation makes the system more complicated IMHO. For example, with your TK example above, could you attempt to pull somebody's eyeballs out with it? If not, why not? It definitely makes refereeing more demanding.

Originally posted by Sandman
In all the RPGs I've played, tiredness is an afterthought that rarely comes into play. And as you say later on, these aren't just normal peasants, are they?

Even heroes need to sleep and eat

Originally posted by Sandman
I guess my gripe is with the idea of the fighter characters with (practically) unlimited generic 'attacks', and limited use swiss army knife mages.

Fighters have unlimited attacks only if they don't get wounded or tired. I don't know about you, in most of the CRPGs I have played, wizards become extremely powerful near the end, making fighters mere moving shields.

So yes, we do need a balance here. Also, don't forget RPGs are more than just fights - although it seems that way sometimes.

Originally posted by Sandman
Okay, what's your take on the mana/potions situation?

I am not sure about what you are referring to. Please elaborate.

Originally posted by Sandman
But would you deny that the majority of RPGs have very simple combat systems?

I can't answer this question since I haven't played all that many RPG systems. From my experience, p'n'p combats tend to be on the realistic side. Role Master is famous for its critical hit tables. In Top Secret and many others you can attempt to aim for various body parts, grapple, disarm, etc.

AD&D has a very simple system, that's why most CRPGs are pretty much the same way.

Originally posted by Sandman
It's to add realism. I don't see the problem, really.

It's not a problem per se but more like a contradiction. Why would you want hit locations if you want to simplify combat? It is only good if my fighter can try to hack somebody's head off by aiming at the neck, or my monk can knockout a person by hitting him in the head.

[child of Thor]

I suppose after playing rpg's for a couple of years, i found AD+D and others like it too simplistic.

The best systems i came across, that combined fun and realism, were Megatraveller and RuneQuest. Both have had outings on computer too, with not bad results considering.
Still pen and paper seems hard to beat.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I like more complicated phsical combat systems.

Try 'Gothic', I hear it has a complicated combat system (which caused some complaints, actually). Gothic II has it as well, but with an option for a more simplified Morrowind style.

Even heroes need to sleep and eat

I can see making your guy sleep. Making him eat may just get tedious though.

Most RPGs provide the opportunity for potion abuse anyway, so why not just get rid of mana altogether?

There has to be some limitation on the magic user. Like UR said, mages become way too powerful. I guess the way to make it work is allow any character to be able to wield magic (like in Morrowind or Lionheart).

And some users my have 'house rules' not to use 'x' potions, etc.

[Sandman]

At any rate, making spells function differently depending on the situation makes the system more complicated IMHO. For example, with your TK example above, could you attempt to pull somebody's eyeballs out with it? If not, why not? It definitely makes refereeing more demanding.

Well, I'm not really talking about pencil and paper RPGs here, since I have no experience of them. Regarding the TK example, I'd consider it reasonable to be able to knock enemies to the ground with it, with a small chance of doing other stuff such as disarming or eyeball removal.

Fighters have unlimited attacks only if they don't get wounded or tired. I don't know about you, in most of the CRPGs I have played, wizards become extremely powerful near the end, making fighters mere moving shields.

So yes, we do need a balance here. Also, don't forget RPGs are more than just fights - although it seems that way sometimes.

I see your point about health being the 'limit' on the fighter and mages needing some sort of limitation on their powers. If some RPGs have implemented a system of limiting fighter powers based on their wounds, that'd be good. As for wizards, mana or memorised spells just strikes me as very crude. Not sure what I'd replace it with, though. Perhaps a more subtle mana bar, with rapid regeneration, but possibly severe consequences for draining it too far.

I am not sure about what you are referring to. Please elaborate.

The mana rating and the spamming of potions to refill it, thus making it irrelevant to the game.

I can't answer this question since I haven't played all that many RPG systems. From my experience, p'n'p combats tend to be on the realistic side. Role Master is famous for its critical hit tables. In Top Secret and many others you can attempt to aim for various body parts, grapple, disarm, etc.

I'd like to see more of that stuff on computer and console RPGs.

It's not a problem per se but more like a contradiction. Why would you want hit locations if you want to simplify combat? It is only good if my fighter can try to hack somebody's head off by aiming at the neck, or my monk can knockout a person by hitting him in the head.

I didn't say that I wanted to simplify combat. And it's not 'only good' if the player can specify what to attack. It makes combat more interesting and realistic than simply comparing numbers. I guess you could say it's mostly a graphical issue, although I'd not rule out the option of the player issuing commands, or certain character abilities influencing where they land and recieve blows.

Try 'Gothic', I hear it has a complicated combat system (which caused some complaints, actually). Gothic II has it as well, but with an option for a more simplified Morrowind style.

Sounds interesting. I'll check it out (and probably get proved totally wrong).

There has to be some limitation on the magic user. Like UR said, mages become way too powerful. I guess the way to make it work is allow any character to be able to wield magic (like in Morrowind or Lionheart).

There must a better way of limiting magic use.

[General Ludd]

You don't neccisarily have to limit magic, it's a matter of the setting and game mechanics.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sandman
Well, I'm not really talking about pencil and paper RPGs here, since I have no experience of them.

Oh. Well they are fun.

Originally posted by Sandman
Regarding the TK example, I'd consider it reasonable to be able to knock enemies to the ground with it, with a small chance of doing other stuff such as disarming or eyeball removal.

See, this sort of decisions are not easily handled by a computer program, so you don't a system that requires a lot of discretion on the part of the referee in a CPRG.

Originally posted by Sandman
I see your point about health being the 'limit' on the fighter and mages needing some sort of limitation on their powers. If some RPGs have implemented a system of limiting fighter powers based on their wounds, that'd be good.

You mean having a system where combatants lose strength as they sustain injuries, so they could do less damage? That's an interesting idea, although my original
suggestion was health to fighters is like mana to wizards.

Originally posted by Sandman
As for wizards, mana or memorised spells just strikes me as very crude. Not sure what I'd replace it with, though. Perhaps a more subtle mana bar, with rapid regeneration, but possibly severe consequences for draining it too far.

There are several things that you can do. For example, limit the number of spells wizards can memorize at once, perhaps as a function of intelligence. Perhaps not number of spells but number of spell ranks. In Fantasy Heroes wizards use up endurance to cast spells, which in essence makes them tired.

Originally posted by Sandman
The mana rating and the spamming of potions to refill it, thus making it irrelevant to the game.

Ah, that's just sloppy design then.

Originally posted by Sandman
I didn't say that I wanted to simplify combat. And it's not 'only good' if the player can specify what to attack. It makes combat more interesting and realistic than simply comparing numbers. I guess you could say it's mostly a graphical issue, although I'd not rule out the option of the player issuing commands, or certain character abilities influencing where they land and recieve blows.

This sort of combat systems make fights deadlier, since they don't use silly concepts like hit points. The only thing is you must match them with an experience system that does not rely on killing things.

Originally posted by Sandman
There must a better way of limiting magic use.

Again, this is just a design issue. There are all sorts of things you can do. You can make spells less powerful. You can make casting spells tiring and/or use up reserve pools quicker. You can make casting powerful spells time consuming and/or risky. You can have critters resistant and/or immune to spells, or you can have critters just suck mana out of wizards. It's pretty much a balancing issue.

[LDiCesare]

I agree that it is possible to gain experience without levels, and games like RuneQuest or Stormbringer by Chaosium were great at it. Think Call of Cthulluh too, where combat is THE thing you want to avoid.
I liked the Chaosium system because your character became stronger in combat by using a few skills (attack, parry, first aid) and letting these increase with experience while hit points remained the same, and then you would find some equipment like iron weapons, quality armour or even sometimes magical stuff which would vastly increase your power if you could master them.
The main point in a RuneQuest system vs. a D&D system is that the emphasis is not combat.
About potions, I do not like them, nor the fact you can heal easily and fast, but I hate it when I have to move away back to town just in order to heal. IF you don't want the game to be boring, either you put potions with a lot of fights or you reduce both fights and potions.
As for magic, limiting magic not by mana but by needed components works well (think Stormbringer: want to call a demon, well what do you sacrifice? If you want a magic weapon, you need a soul - Morrowind does a bit of this for enchanting items).
A skill-based RPG would have to move more around adventure games for inspiration, and provide various ways of solving puzzles based on your character skills (hack through with weapons, talk your way into it, or sneak around).

[Urban Ranger]

There's an interesting idea in Top Secret called "permanent damage." That means, when your character gets injured, there's a chance that he will lost some characteristic points forever. This makes combat rather undesirable, and characters always look for ways to sneak around.

[DarkCloud]

The Roleplaying game Mage somewhat simulates the realistic damage levels better than D&D... You might want to try that.

If you are a higher level mage you can do something like the D&D subdual damage through using magic... but basically if you don't have life magic- three hits'll kill you