Realistic Combat system

[Atanuero]

Let's face it, 3.5 doesn't really do medieval combat very realistically. A 1d4 dagger to the foot and a 1d4 dagger to the forehead is still a 1d4 dagger. This kind of bothers me, but I really don't want to learn a new system and redo a campaign from total scratch. On the other hand, I don't want players yelling 'I go for the head/crotch/heart!' every damage roll just to abuse the common weaknesses. Anyone got any suggestions?

[Bag_of_Holding]

Regarding Critical Hit as a hit to the forehead/throat etc works for me quite well. I also tend to regard a rogue's sneak attack ability as a special training in delivering deadly blows (which the description also says anyway).

[Sleet]

Truly realistic combat in RPGs is, in my experience, extremely un-fun - arbitrary, random, chaotic, and viciously deadly. Skill has little to do with your character's survival, and players go through PCs extremely fast.

Of course, you can get more realistic combat than stock D&D. I've played with the Grim and Gritty (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=5022) rules before; not my cuppa, but they did work, and they seemed to strike an OK balance between RL-simulationist and playable.

[Iku Rex]

You could take a look at some of the variant rules (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/variantAdventuring.htm) for combat published by WotC.

[Lord Tataraus]

If you want a realistic combat system, LARP.

[Nebo_]

It all has to do with how you describe the hits. If a 1d4 dagger deals 4 damage then it might be a hit to the forehead, if it deals 1 damage, then it might have hit them in the foot.

[Fawsto]

In DnD the d20 may say if it landed, but the damage die usualy says where it landed... At least in a friends conception.

But I guess it won't be quite real... Since if 8 in a d8 means "head shot" by this conception, what is the critical hit?

I quite don't agree on this... It can give a small headache to think about it...

[MeklorIlavator]

Generally, I consider only the last 10 to 20 hit points as actually serous injuries. before that, its all scrapes/bruises. A general guideline is to hold off on serious injuries till your below their Con score in hitpoints, similar to the vitality/wound points of the Star wars RPG.

[Skyserpent]

Get a sword and a few years of combat training and go at it like God intended.

Or Larp...

[Cuddly]

Isn't the combination of a 1d20+mods followed by a 1d4+mods and a critical system supposed to model that, somewhat?

Rolling a 1 is a gash to an extremity, while a 4 is a good stab to the chest.

[horseboy]

Short of breaking out Rolemaster/Harn, well, you could allow open ended dice maybe? So if you get a "4" on your d4, keep rolling damage. Then it's a more deadly hit. With crits you still roll two dice, increasing your chance at open ending.

[Nebo_]

But I guess it won't be quite real... Since if 8 in a d8 means "head shot" by this conception, what is the critical hit?


A critical hit is a head shot, or a deep gash across the throat, or a dagger hilt deep in your back, or... the list goes on. A full damage roll would just be a more serious wound than a low damage roll. A crossbow bolt might clatter off your armour, leaving a nasty bruise underneath - or on a full damage roll it might have pierced the metal leaving the head in the metal. A longsword might have knocked a shield back into your face dealing low damage, or slipped underneath your chain leaving a nasty cut on high damage.

I despise 'the non threatening shoulder wound' mentality where every hit draws blood or breaks bones. I like to think that normal hits are just stamina and wounds are small bruises or near misses that leave you drained.

[Dode]

Try learning GURPS and buying their medieval/ancient warfare modules.

I know you specifically asked to adapt the D&D system to allow realistic combat, but that's simply impossible without going through a radical overhaul of the entire game. D&D is a game of fantastic, utterly unrealistic (but greatly entertaining) combat and was designed as such from the ground up.

Hit locations are one step, but there's also the fact that hit points by level; the concept that being experienced in combat meaning you can be mutilated far far more then a normal man with the same physique and turn up okay is impossible to reconcile with 'realism'.

With that dagger for example in GURS, it can be thrust (as opposed to swung, which does higher but less penetrating damage) into an opponent and pierce his organs. All armor in GURPS is a flat DR, so it has to beat that. The damage that makes it is multiplied due to being 'piercing'.

The end effect is that a dagger is great for taking care of unarmored opponents, but is a bad choice vs. heavily armored ones because getting their low damage past their DR is unlikely. A big two-handed weapon can do heaps of slashing damage that will reliably get through an opponents armor, but the type of damage (cutting) isn't as lethal as a knife through the ribs. And bludgeoning weapons, while weak, bypass pliant armors like chain mail and leather to deal lots of crushing damage directly to a foe.

That's approaching realism. But that's just calculating damage: competing skill checks to resolve hits is a story all on it's own. It makes my head swim.

But is it as simple or as fun as "1d20 + x to do 2d6 + x"? Probably not.

[Crow]

It's a role-playing game. No set of rules will ever realistically model combat as it is in real life. There are simply too many factors to consider. Just play and have fun.

If you're really desperate, try using more flavor in your combat;

Player: "I go for the throat!"
GM: "Ok, roll to attack."
<player rolls, hits, does 1 point of damage with dagger>
GM: "You lunge for his throat but he manages to redirect your blow. Still, he can't completely block the attack and the dagger finds it's way into his shoulder."

Also, hitpoints aren't just "How much I can mutilate myself without dying." But that conversation has been done to death already around here, so I'll leave it at that.

[Chronos]

A critical hit is a head shot, or a deep gash across the throat, or a dagger hilt deep in your back, or... the list goes on.On the other hand, you might get a critical hit with a longsword that does 2 damage, or a non-critical hit which does 8 damage. In what sense is the first hit more "critical" than the second?

[RoboticSheeple]

deal with the fact that DnD is an abstraction or LARP with a lot of waivers.
Hitpoints are "realistic" within the realm of games anyway.

[Nebo_]

On the other hand, you might get a critical hit with a longsword that does 2 damage, or a non-critical hit which does 8 damage. In what sense is the first hit more "critical" than the second?

In a purely mechanical sense, obviously. That's why you wait until the damage is rolled before the attack it described. If a critical turns out to be mediocre, then describe it as such.

[Skjaldbakka]

If you want a realistic combat system, LARP.

:roflmao:

Truely the folly of one has not larped. Larping can't have realistic combat. Larp has to be safe. Which means you might have hit location based HP. And that is assuming boffer larps. MET isn't a boffer larp. It uses a card draw to determine challenges.

[Thanatos 51-50]

A round is six seconds in 3rd edand 3.5, right?

It used to be a minuete long (If I recall correctly) in 2nd ed.
The theory was, you would cirlce you opponent, dodging, weaving, and feinting multiple times within that minuete and damage delt was simply the amount of telling blows you landed in that minuete or somesuch. - And only fighters got multiple attacks per round.

A DM can flalty describe the situation, (You miss, he hits for three damage), or he can make the combat sound relaistic (The rogue ducks underneath your greatsword's horizontal arc and thrusts his dagger into your abdomen, you take three damage from the injury). Its all in the DM.

As long as the psan takes place in six seconds, everything is kosher, in my opinion.

[WhiteHarness]

Yes, it's impossible to create a set of rules that completely accurately model combat--but that doesn't mean that we should give up trying altogether and be content with rules that do a demonstrably poor job of it. Don't make "Best" the enemy of "Good."

Try some other systems. GURPS has already been mentioned, and is a truly wonderful system for more realistic combats, especially with the new rules introduced in GURPS Martial Arts.

The Riddle of Steel is probably the most realistic gaming engine for representing medieval combat. It's different from most, and has a high learning curve, but a lot of fun once you've gotten the hang of it.

[Orzel]

I find real life combat too boring and random. In order to make realistic combat less random and more descriptive, you might have to add a bunch of checks to normal combat. I typically hate realistic games cause my people hit the grave too fast.

An attack in my homebrew involves 7 rolls: aim, cover, defense, armor, location, weakness, and damage. The whole point of combat is negating and enforcing rolls. Fighter can ignore aim and defense when attacking, some spells ignore certain checks, cover requires cover, and if you get surprised or caught helpless... oh boy are you gonna die.

[Dhavaer]

The combat system for Inquisitor is, if not totally realistic, is detailed enough to fake it while being simple enough to be useable.

[Charity]

Harnmaster (http://www.columbiagames.com/cgi-bin/query/cfg/allharnitems.cfg) has a gritty real combat system. I strongly advise you look there.

Review
http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/9/9258.phtml
forum
http://www.kelestia.com/
stuff
http://www.columbiagames.com/cgi-bin/query/cfg/zoom.cfg?product_id=4001

[Sebastian]

Let's face it, 3.5 doesn't really do medieval combat very realistically. A 1d4 dagger to the foot and a 1d4 dagger to the forehead is still a 1d4 dagger. This kind of bothers me, but I really don't want to learn a new system and redo a campaign from total scratch. On the other hand, I don't want players yelling 'I go for the head/crotch/heart!' every damage roll just to abuse the common weaknesses. Anyone got any suggestions?

I don't see called shots as particolary realistic, but I think D&D need a good hit location system to go with the criticals, I liked that in Powers and Tactics for 2.5 but I don't think I've ever see a good one for 3.x.

About a more realistic system my favorite is JAGS (www.jagsrpg.org, it is free if you want to check it) not overtly complicated (not simple either) andthe way it handle armors and damage feel more realistic than other systems to me. (If you don't feel like to read the system but want more details ask and I'll do my best to describe it)

[Skjaldbakka]

Checked out JAGS. If I want a system that is somewhat complicated fantasy where you want to roll low half the time, and high the rest of the time, I'll just play 2nd Ed.

[Sebastian]

Checked out JAGS. If I want a system that is somewhat complicated fantasy where you want to roll low half the time, and high the rest of the time, I'll just play 2nd Ed.

mmmh, maybe I've a black out, but the only time you must roll high in jags is when you roll for damage, (and that is not exactly counter intuitive) but even if I'm wrong and there other cases I don't think that alone is enough ground to totally dismiss a system. expecially because we are talking about the realism of the combat system not its ... how do you put it? User friendliness.

Beside JAGS is generic, not fantasy (even if it is kinda fantasy-ish).

And what is wrong with 2nd edition, anyway?

[Skjaldbakka]

I was just giving my general thoughts about the game. If you want a run down of all the reasons I would play something else aside from JAGS, start a new thread, and I'll explain it to you. I don't care to de-rail the thread.

I have no problems with 2nd ed. I don't play it anymore, but I don't have any problems with it. Again, I don't care to elaborate due to the de-railing nature of the topic.

Really, we ought to either be discussing ways to adapt certain aspects of other systems to D&D, or suggesting "try this system".

Someone suggested JAGS. Hence the reply, "I don't care to play JAGS".

Speaking of Realism, I really like the skill development system from Harnmaster. I need to work that into whatever homebrew fantasy d20 system I wind up playing once I decide 4th ed. is garbage.

Edit- just got to the part of the review talking about the combat system. *shudders* Combat System + Mulitple rolls on multiple different Charts = not something I want to ever play. Although I still think I'll wind up stealing the skill development system.

[Kurald Galain]

In Over the Edge, you get bonuses to combat if you describe in some detail what you're doing, especially if it's something original or unexpected. Likewise, you get penalties if you just say "I hit him".

[Skjaldbakka]

I really hate systems that force you to do that. Mostly because a lot of people lack narrative ability, but are otherwise solid roleplayers. I've heard some really bad "stunts" in systems that use them.

[Swooper]

Google for the Grim'n'Gritty variant combat rules. In short:

HP = [Con + 0.5/0.75/1.0 x Level (0.5 for d4 HD classes, 0.75 for d6 and d8 HD, 1.0 for d10 and d12. D12 gets 3 extra HP at 1st level)] x Size Mod (0.5 for small, 1.0 for med, 1.5 for large, 3.0 for huge, 6.0 for gargantuan and 12.0 for colossal - note that characters do not multiply their HD based HP, only monsters do)
AC = 10 + Dex - Armour Check Penalty + Rest of normal mods (except Armour bonus and Natural Armour) + Class mod (same scale as saving throws)
DR = Armour bonus + Natural Armour Bonus + normal DR
Sneak attack is revamped completely (although this makes it boring and weak, I prefer to leave this change out)

And there was something to do with hit locations, can't remember how that worked.

[Irenaeus]

I would like to second the recommendation for HarnMaster as a gritty system with an unusually high degree of verisimilitude. It is the only game in which I've ever killed a PC with 'winter illness' and all the players thought it was a good way to go.


I really hate systems that force you to do that. Mostly because a lot of people lack narrative ability, but are otherwise solid roleplayers. I've heard some really bad "stunts" in systems that use them.I must admit that for me, narrative ability in the players is at the core of providing everybody what I consider a good game. I'm not really a fan of using the system to force it upon people, however.

[Craig1f]

In DnD the d20 may say if it landed, but the damage die usualy says where it landed... At least in a friends conception.

But I guess it won't be quite real... Since if 8 in a d8 means "head shot" by this conception, what is the critical hit?

I quite don't agree on this... It can give a small headache to think about it...

Also, keep in mind, that a "head shot" with a sword isn't the same as a "head shot" with a bullet. If a bullet hits you in the head, it's probably going through. If a sword hits you in the head, it might cut you and bang you up, but won't necessarily go through your skull.

A critical 8 on a d8, might be a shot to the temple.

Anyway, I think the better thing to do is not to make a set of rules. A lot of what I like about DnD is that a LOT of the game is open to interpretation. This means that the game can change based on who is DMing. One DM might just say "you do 12+7 ... 19 points of damage" while another might describe how "you sink your axe into the chest of the monk. Strangely, it's not blood that comes out, but a black, foul-smelling ooze. The wound immediately starts to close itself, but you can tell you've damaged the creature as it stumbles back. As it regains its balance, you now start to notice its eyes are now glowing red. Lightning fast, he gets into stance, and delivers a powerful punch square in your nose. You feel blood gushing from your nose, and a pounding in your head. You are too overcome with pain to act this round (the effect of being stunned)"

[Craig1f]

Let's face it, 3.5 doesn't really do medieval combat very realistically. A 1d4 dagger to the foot and a 1d4 dagger to the forehead is still a 1d4 dagger. This kind of bothers me, but I really don't want to learn a new system and redo a campaign from total scratch. On the other hand, I don't want players yelling 'I go for the head/crotch/heart!' every damage roll just to abuse the common weaknesses. Anyone got any suggestions?

If you want a mix of more realism, without making the game lame, there are a couple of options.

Critical Hits: Instead of a critical hit doing normal damage, it does CON damage. However, a hit with a Greataxe will kill most people in one hit if you do this.

Wounding: Most weapons should have some sort of wounding action. People should start bleeding in combat, and have to be tended to afterward.

AC vs Touch AC: Weapons that exceed a character's touch AC, but not their AC, should still do a percentage of damage ... perhaps nonlethal damage. Blunt weapons should do more of this kind of damage. Taking a hammer to my chainmail should hurt like hell.

Damage Reduction: All armor should have some inherent DR associated with it.

Arrows: Arrows stick in their targets, causing 1 point of wounding damage per minute. Initial arrow damage cannot be healed until the arrow is removed. Removing an arrow deals 1d3 damage, after which the damage from the initial hit can be healed.

Edit: Weapon Types:
Slashing: Causes Heavy Bleeding, but has a hard time breaking through armor. DR has a greater effect on slashing weapons. Slashing weapons do very little nonlethal damage against a target in which the attack roll does not exceed the full AC. However, an attack that exceeds the full AC of the target causes heavy bleeding. Dismembering is possible on a critical roll. Great Axes and Great Swords still do a decent amount of nonlethal damage on an attack roll that exceeds the touch AC, but not the full AC.

Blunt: Does not cause bleeding. However, blunt weapons do significant nonlethal damage on a target, as long as the weapon hits (touch AC). A blunt weapon does at least 50% of its attack roll in nonlethal damage if it exceeds the touch AC, but not the full AC. Critical hits can break bones or cause a concussion.

Piercing: Has an easier time penetrating armor. Ignores DR, and has a bonus against full AC, especially on non-plate armors. Causes light bleeding. Arrows must be removed from targets eventually. Does no damage at all against a target unless it penetrates full AC, however, it has an easier time pentrating the AC. Critical hits strike major arteries for massive bleeding damage, and restrict movement by getting stuck between armor plates.

I haven't come up with the mechanics of all of this, but this is how I would change things. However, adding these features complicates the game a LOT, which is one of the things DnD has tried to avoid.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

If you want a realistic combat system, LARP.
:smallamused:
You know, I quit LARP precisely because it isn't realistic, and it certainly wasn't heroic or fantastic enough.

(I just eventually found it's harder for me to imagine a fantasy scene when I'm being presented with a very similar scene with ordinary people wearing silly clothes and bad make up...)

Anyway - to address the OP: the SRD variant rules already mentioned may help. I recommend the armour as damage conversion, facing and massive damage is CON variants for a quick injection of realism.
Ultimately, d20 by the RAW doesn't do combat simulation in serious detail, it does it quick and fun. We can tweak it here and there, but it'll never be perfect.

[Hyfigh]

I have a similar problem with the combat system. I've actually changed the way I describe combat. I don't base the 'telling blow' on their attack roll. Instead, I wait for the damage roll to be complete. Once I've established how much damage the character has done to the opponent, I explain what happened in the exchange.

[Satyr]

How to make a more realistic fighting system:

Reduce the number of hitpoints per level; 1D4 Hitdice is 1 Hitpoint, 1D6 2 etc. The total number of hitoints is reduced and it becomes harder for a 30 kg halfling to be tougher than a 1/2 ton ogre.
Armor brings no bonus to Defense. It brings Damage Reduction instead.
Every character gets eather his Reflex Save Bonus or his BAb as a Bonus to Defense. Better dodging skills (high reflex saves) or good swordmanship also improves a fighter's defense.
After every hit that deals more damage than the victim's Constitution score, A fortitude save (DC = the total damage) is roled. If the save fails, the victim is stunned, if the save by a margin of five or more, the victim is unconscious.

[Grynning]

I know I bring it up a lot, but the Conan RPG does a pretty good job of making combat more lethal without changing the basic mechanics too much. Hitpoints are capped off at 1 per level after level 10, for one thing, and there are several special attacks that have the potential to be instantly fatal (basically non-magical save-or-dies).
Honestly, no one would want to play in a game with totally realistic combat, in real life even seemingly insignificant wounds can prove fatal, and no one could survive the type of fighting that takes place in the average RPG (or TV show, or movie, or novel, for that matter). There's a pretty good explanation here, be sure to read the real life examples at the bottom of the page, also check out the related Made of Iron article: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OnlyAFleshWound

[Skjaldbakka]

I am disappointed at that article, as it missed a significant historical example:

Benedict Arnold was shot in the left leg in the battle of Quebec, and made an almost total recovery, and then was shot again in the same leg, in the battle of Saratoga, which laid him out for months. That is why there is a monument that is a left leg, from the knee down, at Saratoga.

[Pyroconstruct]

I'm amazed that we've gotten this far without anyone sarcastically recommending F.A.T.A.L., the world's most "historically and mythologically accurate RPG."

[GoC]

A better question is how you hit someone wearing full plate armor, how come cats routinely kill commoners and how come its as easy for a commoner to hit a greater deity as it is for them to hit a knight with a tower shield and banded mail...

[Craig1f]

Armor brings no bonus to Defense. It brings Damage Reduction instead. [/LIST]

Again, I think this really depends.

Against a slashing weapon, it's really all or nothing. Hitting someone with a blade, and hitting their armor, isn't going to do anything. So I think armor would add to AC, not to DR in this case.

The same with piercing. An arrow only hurts if it goes in. An arrow that hits you dead center on the chest does nothing.

Blunt weapons will hurt through armor, because of the impact. The impact would be reduced though, and DR would play a roll.

But then you have things like slashing/blunt (Greataxe and Greatsword both have some weight behind them, and would behave as blunt weapons). You also have blunt/piercing, like a morningstar, which is designed to put a lot of weight behind one very sharp spike, which can go through armor.

If DnD could find a better way to deal with all these different damage types, without over complicating the system, I think it would add a good dynamic to the game.

[Lord Tataraus]

Again, I think this really depends.

Against a slashing weapon, it's really all or nothing. Hitting someone with a blade, and hitting their armor, isn't going to do anything. So I think armor would add to AC, not to DR in this case.

The same with piercing. An arrow only hurts if it goes in. An arrow that hits you dead center on the chest does nothing.

Blunt weapons will hurt through armor, because of the impact. The impact would be reduced though, and DR would play a roll.

But then you have things like slashing/blunt (Greataxe and Greatsword both have some weight behind them, and would behave as blunt weapons). You also have blunt/piercing, like a morningstar, which is designed to put a lot of weight behind one very sharp spike, which can go through armor.

If DnD could find a better way to deal with all these different damage types, without over complicating the system, I think it would add a good dynamic to the game.

Slashing weapons against these types of armor are useless, thats why all weapons where piercing or bludgeoning. The greatsword was an amazing weapon because it served the purpose of a shield and bludgeoning weapon. A bludgeon from an edge is a lot worse than from a mace or other larger surface (basic pressure principles). Of course, for this last reason axes did exist but were better for mounted warriors attacking ground troops because they could get the momentum. As for armor granting only DR, that is not true. The basic reason for wearing armor is to decrease your vulnerability by allowing only very small targets to be hit. If your opponent is wearing full-plate he is extremely hard to hit because you need to jab at the joints which are most likely protected with a greatsword or shield.

One more feature of a realistic combat system is using the shield correctly. A shield is a tool to allow you to hide your movements, disarm opponents, protect more of your body, and bash your way closer to your opponent. The shield is not actively used to block attacks, but rather to push against an opponent to allow you to stab at weak points from very close up among other maneuvers. Also, most shields had wooden edges so if the shield blocked a swinging blow, it would catch the weapon delaying the opponent's recovery, so you could make a free and vital stab at the exposed side of the opponent.

[DestroyYouAlot]

OP: Easy. Try HackMaster.

The combat system has D&D at its chewy nougat center (which, really, hasn't changed much over 30 years - roll d20, add some stuff, hit a certain number), but with lots of attention paid to the detail.

First off, everyone gets a 20hp "kicker" on top of their hit dice. Makes 1st level characters / 1HD monsters significantly more durable; you're not likely to ice someone in a single sword stroke EXCEPT:

a) Dice are, as suggested above, open-ended. Roll the maximum on a die, you roll it again, adding the result -1. This makes weapons that do multiple dice of damage (2d4, usually) particularly nasty. Introduces a nice ramping curve on the damage. This is also applied to healing, so you'll sometimes get an extra "charge" on a healing spell.

b) 20 is a critical, every time. However, there's criticals, and there's criticals. Critical severity is based on the target's AC, the attacker's to-hit bonus and class/level (what would be BAB in 3.x), and an open-ended d8. Effects range from "tack on a few points or an extra die or two of damage," through movement / attack / defense penalties, effects like weapon drops and being knocked to prone, up to crushed / severed extremities. The exact effects are arrived at from a location roll, the severity of the crit, and whether the damaging weapon is piercing/slashing/blunt.

Overall, it's a very descriptive system, makes for some occasionally nasty combat results, and splices nearly effortlessly into whatever your flavor of D&D is. You could simply lift the concepts I listed above from HM, and import them into your current game, for a new take on combat. And, hell, if the "1e AD&D on crack" aspect intrigues you, you might even convert. ;)

[BardicDuelist]

GURPS has, in my experience, the highes amount of versimillitude (sp?) of any table top RPG. LARP isn't suited to roleplaying, as one's own physical limitations do not allow one to fully adopt annother persona, which tabletop games do not have (although both share a mental limitation).

Really, the only realistic fight system is a real fight, and anything short of true combat to the death cannot accurately emulate it. THIS IS, OFCOURSE, A REALLY REALLY BAD IDEA. But it is still true.

Within D&D (or at least the d20 system) M&M's no hitpoints is pretty close (at least it breaks my versimillitude less).

[DestroyYouAlot]

OP: Easy. Try HackMaster.

Addendum: There are also very tasty fatigue and threshold of pain mechanics that make battle quite a bit more grueling.

[Sleet]

I'm amazed that we've gotten this far without anyone sarcastically recommending F.A.T.A.L., the world's most "historically and mythologically accurate RPG."

Do not invoke the name of the Game-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named! No!

[Sebastian]

Do not invoke the name of the Game-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named! No!

Actually there was a game even worse than Fatal (even if for totally different reasons) but I think I erased the name from my memory.

No, wait. Now I remember, hybrid rpg, the horror,THE HORROR!!! :smalleek:

(Goggle it at your own risk)

[Jack Zander]

Actually there was a game even worse than Fatal (even if for totally different reasons) but I think I erased the name from my memory.

No, wait. Now I remember, hybrid rpg, the horror,THE HORROR!!! :smalleek:

(Goggle it at your own risk)

Oh GOD! I've lost all hope in humanity!

*BANG!*

[kjones]

(Goggle it at your own risk)

THE GOGGLES! THEY DO NOTHING!