Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-21-2013, 07:08 PM   #31
Peter V. Dell'Orto
Fightin' Round the World
 
Peter V. Dell'Orto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: New Jersey
Default Re: Targeting cone attacks

Quote:
Originally Posted by roguebfl View Post
if you are aiming closer determine scatter from the point of aim, then extend the cone out from there to max range. It will cause a wider margin of possible miss though.
Okay, but do you determine scatter despite hitting the closer target?

If I hit the closer guy, the barbarian, and I roll my 12 or less, I hit him. There is no scatter. It's not "I hit somewhere within his hex" but "I hit him and the cone scatters from there." Which means the further target gets hit, incidentally.

The rules don't really say, "if you hit, you hit somewhere within a one-yard area containing him." A hit is a hit, and I can't see why it isn't a hit squarely in the center of the target for purposes of determining where else the cone goes. Especially since, by the raw, the size of your cone doesn't help your skill - if you roll your IA skill minus range/speed plus/minus SM, you hit. Period. That's, according to page 413 it says "One a hit, the cone is on target; otherwise, use the Scatter rule (p. 414) to determine a new target point." So as long as I roll under my skill to hit the target, I hit it square, that's the middle "hex" or "yard" of my cone. That's really where my issue with the RAW, as I understand it - there is never a reason to aim at the further target, and it's nonsensical to roll for the further one just because he happens to be there.
__________________
Peter V. Dell'Orto
aka Toadkiller_Dog or TKD
My Author Page
My S&C Blog
My Dungeon Fantasy Game Blog
"You fall onto five death checks." - Andy Dokachev
Peter V. Dell'Orto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 07:30 PM   #32
roguebfl
Dog of Lysdexics
 
roguebfl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Melbourne FL, Formerly Wellington NZ
Default Re: Targeting cone attacks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog View Post
Okay, but do you determine scatter despite hitting the closer target?

If I hit the closer guy, the barbarian, and I roll my 12 or less, I hit him. There is no scatter. It's not "I hit somewhere within his hex" but "I hit him and the cone scatters from there." Which means the further target gets hit, incidentally.

The rules don't really say, "if you hit, you hit somewhere within a one-yard area containing him." A hit is a hit, and I can't see why it isn't a hit squarely in the center of the target for purposes of determining where else the cone goes. Especially since, by the raw, the size of your cone doesn't help your skill - if you roll your IA skill minus range/speed plus/minus SM, you hit. Period. That's, according to page 413 it says "One a hit, the cone is on target; otherwise, use the Scatter rule (p. 414) to determine a new target point." So as long as I roll under my skill to hit the target, I hit it square, that's the middle "hex" or "yard" of my cone. That's really where my issue with the RAW, as I understand it - there is never a reason to aim at the further target, and it's nonsensical to roll for the further one just because he happens to be there.

If you hit them and were aiming at them then there is no scatter draw the line of effect though the target you were aiming at.

If you aimed at a hex then the GM is with their rights to draw the line of effect though any part of the hex they wish. However I would draw it though the center of the hex if you hit by 4 or more (assuming a +4 modifier for attack the hex) and but hit by less then 4 then i would chose some other point in the hex. Not if the person you real want to hit is in the hex they hit no mater what pat of the hex you draw it though... but I would prove no such guarantee if you're aiming at an unoccupied hex.

both of these cases don't use the scanter rules becuase they are hits not misses... however you something other than GM whim for where to draw the line though for the hit by less than 4, then use the scanter rules direction algorithm for which corner of the hex to draw the line tough either counting the near side corner as far side corner results or simple say the even you use the near side the person in the hex is considered hit in the same hex
__________________
Rogue the Bronze Firelizard
Gerald Grenier, Jr. Hail Eris!
Rogue's Weyr

Last edited by roguebfl; 04-21-2013 at 07:34 PM.
roguebfl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 07:36 PM   #33
Peter V. Dell'Orto
Fightin' Round the World
 
Peter V. Dell'Orto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: New Jersey
Default Re: Targeting cone attacks

Quote:
Originally Posted by roguebfl View Post
If you aimed at a hex then the GM is with their rights to draw the line of effect though any part of the hex they wish.
It says so where in the rules, though?
__________________
Peter V. Dell'Orto
aka Toadkiller_Dog or TKD
My Author Page
My S&C Blog
My Dungeon Fantasy Game Blog
"You fall onto five death checks." - Andy Dokachev
Peter V. Dell'Orto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 07:39 PM   #34
sir_pudding
Wielder of Smart Pants
 
sir_pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
Default Re: Targeting cone attacks

Maybe this is PM Kromm time?

I have a PC with a cone attack in my game and it's come up recently there too. I just resolved it by using the Range modifier for the 1/2D range, but that was really just a "Roll and Shout!" resolution.
sir_pudding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 07:40 PM   #35
roguebfl
Dog of Lysdexics
 
roguebfl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Melbourne FL, Formerly Wellington NZ
Default Re: Targeting cone attacks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog View Post
It says so where in the rules, though?
Note sure, I'm basing it on repeating statements by Kromm about the unsurity of position inside a hex especially when people start talking about bonuses to hit for being close.

and the Fact when your aiming at a hex you're very much in "close enough counts in hand-grenades and horseshoes" class of aiming.

but they also in their right just to say it goes though the center of the hex for shear speed of play.
__________________
Rogue the Bronze Firelizard
Gerald Grenier, Jr. Hail Eris!
Rogue's Weyr
roguebfl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 07:42 PM   #36
Langy
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: CA
Default Re: Targeting cone attacks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog View Post
Okay, but do you determine scatter despite hitting the closer target?

If I hit the closer guy, the barbarian, and I roll my 12 or less, I hit him. There is no scatter. It's not "I hit somewhere within his hex" but "I hit him and the cone scatters from there." Which means the further target gets hit, incidentally.
No, it's 'I hit somewhere on his body'. It's not 'I hit his exact center of mass'. There's still scatter involved

Quote:
The rules don't really say, "if you hit, you hit somewhere within a one-yard area containing him." A hit is a hit, and I can't see why it isn't a hit squarely in the center of the target for purposes of determining where else the cone goes.
Because doing it that way creates perverse results like what's discussed in this thread. It's also not supported anywhere by the rules.

Quote:
Especially since, by the raw, the size of your cone doesn't help your skill - if you roll your IA skill minus range/speed plus/minus SM, you hit. Period.
Actually, by the RAW, there is a bonus to your hit based on the size of the cone. The RAW just doesn't spell it out.

Quote:
So as long as I roll under my skill to hit the target, I hit it square, that's the middle "hex" or "yard" of my cone. That's really where my issue with the RAW, as I understand it - there is never a reason to aim at the further target, and it's nonsensical to roll for the further one just because he happens to be there.
You hit the target, yes, and that is the middle of the cone, but you don't hit the middle of the target. Note that 'the middle of this guy' is a much harder target than 'just that guy in general'. For an example of this, look at target shooting. There's this thing called a 'bullseye', see, and what you're arguing for is if the bullseye is painted on the middle of an SM+5 barn, then if you roll to hit that SM+5 barn then you hit the dead-center of the 1" bullseye.

That's not how targeting works in GURPS. If you want to hit the bullseye, you have to target it, and accept the penalties involved.
Langy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 07:48 PM   #37
Peter V. Dell'Orto
Fightin' Round the World
 
Peter V. Dell'Orto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: New Jersey
Default Re: Targeting cone attacks

Quote:
Originally Posted by roguebfl View Post
and the Fact when your aiming at a hex you're very much in "close enough counts in hand-grenades and horseshoes" class of aiming.
Okay, but what if I'm not aiming at a hex? Then by rights, I hit dead-center on the target, as I'm asserting, or "somewhere within the same hex as the target" as I think Langy's linked picture is showing?

The thing about cones is, if you miss, you can often still hit. This should allow for more hitting at a lower skill and/or more hitting at a larger margin of miss. It should even go as far as "I can't possibly miss" if your cone is wide enough (a cone that's got a 100 yard range and a 100 yard maximum width is going to be hard to miss with; you'd practically have to want to miss). But I'm wondering if, by the RAW, it's not always better for a cone user to have a closer target that just happens to line up a cone further on (and thus hit those further on targets) than if they aren't there.

Remember I'm the guy who doesn't think the +4 should apply; but even without that, why do I even need to aim if I can just point down a rough line and hit my target? Do I really need to resort to GM fiat and say "you weren't pointing in the line you thought you were"?

Look, clearly I'm missing something fundamental and obvious, and if so, I apologize. But I just don't see how cones "work" as written. They seem like they depend a lot on not having a mix of targets, not having people try cute aiming tricks, and GMs doing weird stuff like insisting your "hit" actually passed through the tiny edge of the hex you hit just to show you who's boss. That can't be right, by my way of thinking.
__________________
Peter V. Dell'Orto
aka Toadkiller_Dog or TKD
My Author Page
My S&C Blog
My Dungeon Fantasy Game Blog
"You fall onto five death checks." - Andy Dokachev
Peter V. Dell'Orto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 07:53 PM   #38
Peter V. Dell'Orto
Fightin' Round the World
 
Peter V. Dell'Orto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: New Jersey
Default Re: Targeting cone attacks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Langy View Post
No, it's 'I hit somewhere on his body'. It's not 'I hit his exact center of mass'. There's still scatter involved
The rules don't say that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Langy View Post

Because doing it that way creates perverse results like what's discussed in this thread. It's also not supported anywhere by the rules.
Which is part of my issue with both the RAW and what I'm getting out of this thread - perverse results.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Langy View Post
Actually, by the RAW, there is a bonus to your hit based on the size of the cone. The RAW just doesn't spell it out.
Sadly, I need it spelled out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Langy View Post
You hit the target, yes, and that is the middle of the cone, but you don't hit the middle of the target. Note that 'the middle of this guy' is a much harder target than 'just that guy in general'. For an example of this, look at target shooting. There's this thing called a 'bullseye', see, and what you're arguing for is if the bullseye is painted on the middle of an SM+5 barn, then if you roll to hit that SM+5 barn then you hit the dead-center of the 1" bullseye.
Again, large-area injury says I just need to hit him. Why is "center mass" a -0 on a human-sized target for, say, Tight-Beam Burning or a bullet, but not a cone? I'm not talking barns here, I'm talking the rules saying it's Large-Area Injury and affecting the whole body of my target.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Langy View Post
That's not how targeting works in GURPS. If you want to hit the bullseye, you have to target it, and accept the penalties involved.
See above.
__________________
Peter V. Dell'Orto
aka Toadkiller_Dog or TKD
My Author Page
My S&C Blog
My Dungeon Fantasy Game Blog
"You fall onto five death checks." - Andy Dokachev
Peter V. Dell'Orto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 07:55 PM   #39
roguebfl
Dog of Lysdexics
 
roguebfl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Melbourne FL, Formerly Wellington NZ
Default Re: Targeting cone attacks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog View Post
Okay, but what if I'm not aiming at a hex? Then by rights, I hit dead-center on the target, as I'm asserting, or "somewhere within the same hex as the target" as I think Langy's linked picture is showing?
Not 'dead center' and that right IS in the rules under Random hit location. You're only guaranteed a dead on when call a hit location and take the appropriate modifiers before you role. The GM has has the same flex as choosing on wither to use random hit location or not.

Even then the unsurity of where that person is in the hex give you flexibility to determine where the others are in the cone area of effect are hit or not
__________________
Rogue the Bronze Firelizard
Gerald Grenier, Jr. Hail Eris!
Rogue's Weyr
roguebfl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 08:25 PM   #40
Langy
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: CA
Default Re: Targeting cone attacks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog View Post
The rules don't say that.
Actually, they do. Check out 'random hit locations' and the example I just posted. It should be extremely clear that to hit the actual dead center of a target, you need to accept a further penalty than if you're just aiming at it in general.

Quote:
Which is part of my issue with both the RAW and what I'm getting out of this thread - perverse results.
It's not the RAW that's giving perverse results, it's the fact you aren't applying the RAW that's doing it (and the fact that the RAW isn't spelled out explicitly, and is instead hidden in the mechanics of how the system works in various areas).

Quote:
Sadly, I need it spelled out.
Look at my previous example - it spells it out for you, and everything in it is 100% RAW.

Quote:
Again, large-area injury says I just need to hit him. Why is "center mass" a -0 on a human-sized target for, say, Tight-Beam Burning or a bullet, but not a cone? I'm not talking barns here, I'm talking the rules saying it's Large-Area Injury and affecting the whole body of my target.
'Center mass' isn't the actual, perfect center of mass of a human-sized target. It's 'somewhere randomly on their body somewhere around the torso'. If you shoot someone 10 times without taking targeted attacks, you won't hit him in the same exact spot each time. This is even explicitly mentioned in the rules, specifically in one of the sections on damage to armor (maybe in Ultra Tech, where they're talking about laser drills?).

Large Area Injury is about hitting a large area, not about getting the perfect center of the cone through the perfect center of the target, which is what you seem to want it to mean.
Langy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
cone, rules question

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.