04-27-2007, 09:29 PM | #1 |
MIB
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
Vitals and torso
Restarting an old campaign, we're considering a new house rule. This is that if you aim at the "vitals" hit location, which is normally -3 to hit, and if your margin of failure to hit is 1, 2 or 3, then you strike the torso instead.
We're thinking here of ranged combat rather than melee, since we don't know about melee but do know about fire. When firing a firearm, your ability to shoot well is measured by the size of your "group" - you test shooting ability by firing several rounds at a target, and seeing if they consistently hit the same point. So a person whose group (space between two furthest bullet holes on target) is 4 inches is a better shot than someone whose group is 10 inches; they're better at consistently hitting about the same point. In the military and police forces, people are trained to aim at "centre of mass of target" - for a standing target, a point about where the sternum begins. This is because the torso's the largest part of the body, so even if you "miss" the point you're aiming at, you might still hit some other part of the target. Aim between the eyes and go off-target by four inches, and you miss the them completely; aim at sternum and go off-target by that same four inches, and you still hit them. Since a person with low skill rating is more likely to have a large margin of failure than a person with high skill rating, and since smaller targets have a larger malus to hit, it seems logical to draw a parallel between margin of failure and "group size." So with this reasoning, a shot at the "vitals" - which for a firearms shot would be at "centre of mass", since the heart, lungs and spinal column are all close together - which misses by a small amount should hit the torso instead. Likewise, I suppose, a shot at the eye...? Thoughts?
__________________
* husband * father * personal trainer * gamer * ... in that order |
04-27-2007, 09:44 PM | #2 |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
|
Re: Vitals and torso
Sounds like a wise idea as otherwise GURPS gives you get a shotgun affect hitting who knows where in un-called shots.
Should though require shooter to be non-moving and must have at least +1 aim. Another possibility: If misses by 1 its a flyer: roll normal Hit Location, misses by 2-3 it is a graze :does 1/2 damage
__________________
Chard: The army doesn't like more than one disaster in a day. Bromhead: Looks bad in the newspapers and upsets civilians at their breakfast. |
04-27-2007, 09:46 PM | #3 |
Pike's Pique
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio U.S.A.
|
Re: Vitals and torso
What Jim Bob suggests is pretty much common sense.
Seems to be a good GM judgement call. Aiming for the torso of a argeted individual, you STILL have a chance of hitting the vitals. - Ed Charlton
__________________
Take me out to the black Tell them I ain't comin' back Burn the land and boil the sea You can't take the sky from me.... A vote for charity: http://s3.silent-tower.org/TheKlingonVotes/index.html |
04-28-2007, 12:38 AM | #4 |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: Vitals and torso
IMO, it should've been taken over to 4e as a non-house (default) rule. Smilar cases are eyes and skull targets being part of the head, hands parts of the arm etc.
In fact, not doing it this way means that aiming at the center of an object (skull, torso) somehow reduces the chance to hit the whole object at all (head, character's whole body). |
04-28-2007, 05:06 AM | #5 |
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denmark
|
Re: Vitals and torso
Well that rule means noone will ever target Torso.
If they do it's probably because they want their target alive... and then they can be pretty sure that's what they get, because there is no chance to accidentally hit the vitals. This is of course based on game-balance, and not on realism. We just give a 1/6 chance to hit the vitals if you shoot/stab the torso. In addition to the normal rules. This should realistically be higher. But as it goes against my players as well, I put it at 1/6 to not accidentally kill them. |
04-28-2007, 05:21 AM | #6 |
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The Fine Line Between Black and White
|
Re: Vitals and torso
What about people just shooting at you without targetting specifics? In gurps, you have to aim at the lung to shoot it.
Should someone who makes their roll by X more than skill hit the vitals? I know the wounding modifier has some bit to do with this but a .22 in the heart can be as deadly as a 9mm. In the movies we've all seen the scared rape victim/witness/whatever pick up the attacker's gun and blam, shot through the heart. Her method? Close your eyes and squeeze the trigger. How does that result in a heart shot in gurps?
__________________
. ( )( ) -This is The Overlord Bunny o(O.o)o -Master of Bunnies O('')('') -And Destroyer of the Hasenpfeffer "This is the sort of relatively small error that destroys planetary probes." ~Bruno |
04-28-2007, 06:39 AM | #7 |
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France
|
Re: Vitals and torso
Jim Bob's explanation is perfectly clear and coherent. But there is still a problem. If, from the realism's point of view what is said seems obvious to me, from a gaming's point of view, I do not agree.
Because it means that every character will try to hit the vitals without having to take any risk! Indeed, in the rules as they are written, if you aim at the vitals, you will have a -3 penalty. So you can do more damage, but with a lower level of skill. With Jim Bob's houserule, you can do more damage and still preserve the same chance of hitting your target. This is not fair. Furthermore, when trained soldiers and policemen aim at the centre of mass of the target, they don't try to hit the vitals. They just want to be sure to hit the target. That is what corresponds to the -0 for aiming at the torso. And the heart, the kidneys are not in the centre of mass of the target. When aiming at the centre of mass of the target, you will more often hit the stomach, the liver or a lung... So, from a gaiming point of view, I prefer the rules as they are written. If a character tries to hit the vitals, he has a -3 penalty; and if he misses by 1, he hits the torso (which gives him only a -2 to hit his target). Last edited by Gollum; 04-28-2007 at 07:01 AM. |
04-28-2007, 07:24 AM | #8 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: Vitals and torso
The way I run, a ranged attack that succeeds by 3 hits the vitals, one that succeeds by 2 hits the torso, and one that succeeds by 0 or 1 hits a random location.
It's worked well. |
04-28-2007, 08:06 AM | #9 | |||
MIB
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
Re: Vitals and torso
Quote:
Not all PCs want to kill all NPCs all the time. Quote:
You only do more damage, striking the vitals, if you succeed by more than 3; if you succeed by 0, 1 or 2, then you do regular torso damage. Quote:
The liver, lungs, heart, kidneys etc as mentioned by you (Gollum) are significant - in "making the guy drop in combat" terms - because a lot of blood passes through them; they are also attached to many major blood vessels such as the renal (kidney) arteries. If you aim at "centre of mass" - the sternum, or a little above that, then about 1/2 the area in an 18" diameter circle around that spot will have organs and blood vessels and the spinal column, so that if struck, the target will suffer traumatic blood loss or nerve damage and probably fall down. In game terms, "vitals" were struck. But if the firer does not strike any vital organs, the bullet does not sail past them harmlessly automatically. Please, examine this target here, then explain to me why, if I choose to aim at the bullseye and miss even by 1, my bullet misses the target completely, whereas if I aim at the target generally, a worse shot will strike the target. If GURPS is intended to model reality, and if in reality military and police aim at centre of mass and commonly hit vital organs and blood vessels, then why would this rule be a bad thing? If GURPS is intended to model action movies, where when you shoot, your shot either kills him instantly or misses him entirely, then the RAW work excellently. If you want GURPS to model reality, then I think my suggested house rule is better than the RAW.
__________________
* husband * father * personal trainer * gamer * ... in that order |
|||
04-28-2007, 08:37 AM | #10 | |
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada
|
Re: Vitals and torso
Quote:
I might consider making it something like "if you miss by 1 or 2, hit the torso" but that's not a significant penalty in comparison to the benefits. Realistic, possibly, but does cause game balance issue. (And yes, often PCs shouldn't be trying to murder the opposition, but my game has nazi elves who ARE trying to kill PCs. This would make them seriously lethaler.)
__________________
All about Size Modifier; Unified Hit Location Table A Wiki for my F2F Group A neglected GURPS blog |
|
Tags |
hit location, injury |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|