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, 11:22 PM   #41
kirbwarrior
 
kirbwarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dreamland
Default Re: Targeting cone attacks

I had always thought where you aimed to hit with a cone is how far the cone goes and where the spread point is (so a 5yd cone pointing 2yds away creates a very wide but shallow cone). Now that I see it written, I'm not sure it makes as much sense, but I've never had anyone (ever) get a cone attack that wasn't 1 yd wide (to give a giant beam feel).

Since guns and other IAs can go further than the intended target, it seems that you could aim at something closer. What I think Langy is trying to get across is; aim at what you are trying to actually hit. If I'm trying to hit a barbarian who's 20yds away, it's easier than trying to hit one 100yds away. But if there are two barbarians at those distances, and they happen to be in about a straight line, then you can 'accidentally' hit the closer one by aiming at the further one. To make things most fair, I'd say that the penalty for distance (at least on cones) does not increase critical failure chance, so combined with the +4 for hitting a specific spot and scatter rules being only off by yards for miss, you might be incapable of missing someone who's only yards away from you.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmicfish View Post
While I do not think that GURPS is perfect I do think that it is more balanced than what I am likely to create by GM fiat.
kirbwarrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2013, 02:13 AM   #42
Mathulhu
 
Join Date: May 2009
Default Re: Targeting cone attacks

Take the two characters in the picture.

If you really want to hit the first one.
Roll to hit the first one.
If it misses calculate scatter and draw another aiming line.

If it hits
Then roll to hit the second one.
If it hits keep following the line.
If it misses calculate scatter and draw another aiming line.
And make it make sense.

Then mark on the actual cone, and potentially realise they were both hit.

If you really want to hit the second one.

Roll to hit the second one.
If it hits, laugh you hit the first one without rolling.
If it misses calculate scatter and draw another aiming line.
And make it make sense.

In combat people move. The world doesn't really pause to let you line up your area effects.
__________________
Maxwell Kensington "Snotkins" Von Smacksalot III
Mathulhu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2013, 04:26 AM   #43
Gnome
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Cambridge, MA
Default Re: Targeting cone attacks

Maybe I'm being thick, but I'm not understanding the "targeting body parts" examples at all. First off, I thought large-area injury attacks like cones had to hit the entire body. Secondly, I still have no idea how I would adjudicate where the cone goes after I hit.
If I instead have to target a particular hex (as opposed to a point, as the RAW seems to imply), then I get bizarre results on a hex map. Depending on the orientation of the map, there might be a hex right next to mine that I could target to hit a far away opponent, or I might need to choose a further one. Surely the way we happen to superimpose the map shouldn't make such a huge difference.
I have no idea what the written intention is, but I'm inclined to simply forget about range penalties for cones and let people just place the cone however they want. Maybe I'll drop the +4 for game balance.
Gnome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2013, 06:51 AM   #44
Langy
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: CA
Default Re: Targeting cone attacks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnome View Post
Maybe I'm being thick, but I'm not understanding the "targeting body parts" examples at all. First off, I thought large-area injury attacks like cones had to hit the entire body.
This is incorrect. Cones don't have to hit the entire body in order to work; in the dragon example, for instance, the dragon couldn't have hit the entire body of the barbarian 20 yards away from him even if he tried, because his cone's too narrow at that point. Further, even if they do hit the entire body they won't necessarily be centered on the center of the hex the target's body is in.

Quote:
Secondly, I still have no idea how I would adjudicate where the cone goes after I hit.
There are no rules for this except the scatter ones (which are honestly pretty bad). Just adjudicate it how you wish; personally, I'd make it so that you look up what SM you would have hit on a circular target on the Speed/Range table (subtract two from the MoF and add it to the SM of the target) and make it so the center of the cone goes through a point half that many yards away from where the target was standing; randomly choose to the left or right. For example, targeting an SM+1 Barbarian, I miss by 4; I would have hit if the barbarian were SM+3 and circular, which is 7 yards. My cone thus misses the barbarian by 3.5 yards.

This also works if it were a hit; at a success by 0, then the cone hits about half a yard from the center of the target (SM+0, -2 for circular = SM-2, which is 1 yard; take half of that and you get your deviance). On a success by 2, the cone hits 0.75 feet from the center of the target. Etc.

Quote:
If I instead have to target a particular hex (as opposed to a point, as the RAW seems to imply), then I get bizarre results on a hex map. Depending on the orientation of the map, there might be a hex right next to mine that I could target to hit a far away opponent, or I might need to choose a further one. Surely the way we happen to superimpose the map shouldn't make such a huge difference.
Never allow a player to target a closer hex in order to hit a far-away opponent. Always require a player to roll to hit the hardest target he's intending to hit. The only reason this is coming up is because you're allowing people to automatically hit the exact center of a hex without accepting the penalty required to do so - this penalty happens to be the same as that required to hit the farther target.

Remember: Cones attacks do not always hit the center of their target, even on a success. The orientation of the battlemap shouldn't change this, so don't allow it to do so.
Langy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2013, 08:09 AM   #45
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
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.
The disconnect here is, I think you're misapplying the hit location rules in a way that's both contrary to how they work and how Large-Area Injury (p. 400) explicitly works (hit location damage modification is not used) and how Area and Spreading Attacks (p. 413) says to run them. I'm just seeing the rules backing up your assertion on how hit locations work, either.

I'm happy to admit I don't really understand how cones are meant to be run - but I'm unhappy to accept an answer that seems contrary to what is written in the rulebooks. Why do I need to accept a hit location based penalty for an attack that says not to use hit locations? Why can't I just pick a direction and fire without a specific target, really, if everything between me and 100 yards out in a cone-shaped area gets hit? I'm thinking "dragon breathes down the hallway" kind of moves, here, where I can't see it missing.

I'm just going to go and try some cone attacks out on my own and see what happens, see what seems fair, and run with that.
__________________
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 04-22-2013, 08:14 AM   #46
Gnome
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Cambridge, MA
Default Re: Targeting cone attacks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Langy View Post
Never allow a player to target a closer hex in order to hit a far-away opponent. Always require a player to roll to hit the hardest target he's intending to hit. The only reason this is coming up is because you're allowing people to automatically hit the exact center of a hex without accepting the penalty required to do so - this penalty happens to be the same as that required to hit the farther target.

Remember: Cones attacks do not always hit the center of their target, even on a success. The orientation of the battlemap shouldn't change this, so don't allow it to do so.
That makes sense, but what if my dragon doesn't care who he hits? He's aiming at the Barbarian, but he's happy to hit any and all other who may happen to end up in the cone. He scores a hit on the Barbarian. Now should I figure out what he would have had to roll in order to hit another target somewhere behind the Barbarian, see what he rolled against that, and use the scatter rules from there? What if the dragon doesn't want to hit any other targets; rather he wants to hit the Barbarian and deliberately miss the friendly Dragon-born standing in the background?

Related question: are these your house rules, or do you think the RAW really implies all of this complexity with respect to multiple targets?

Maybe it would be better to think of a cone as an area effect attack with a cone-shaped area of effect rather than a circular one...
Gnome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2013, 08:19 AM   #47
Langy
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: CA
Default Re: Targeting cone attacks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog View Post
The disconnect here is, I think you're misapplying the hit location rules in a way that's both contrary to how they work and how Large-Area Injury (p. 400) explicitly works (hit location damage modification is not used) and how Area and Spreading Attacks (p. 413) says to run them. I'm just seeing the rules backing up your assertion on how hit locations work, either.
What I've been talking about has nothing at all to do with hit location damage modification. In fact, it barely has to do with hit locations at all, except to show that GURPS doesn't assume that you always hit the dead center of an object each time you fire at it (which is the assumption you're making).

Quote:
I'm happy to admit I don't really understand how cones are meant to be run - but I'm unhappy to accept an answer that seems contrary to what is written in the rulebooks. Why do I need to accept a hit location based penalty for an attack that says not to use hit locations? Why can't I just pick a direction and fire without a specific target, really, if everything between me and 100 yards out in a cone-shaped area gets hit? I'm thinking "dragon breathes down the hallway" kind of moves, here, where I can't see it missing.
It's not a hit location based penalty. It's an SM and range based penalty.

Basically, you have to do the same as you would for any other attack. Treat it like a normal attack! Stop trying to game the system, because the way you're doing it is wrong and doesn't work with the way the rules as written work. You ask why you can't just shoot in the general direction of someone and it automatically hits him - and the reason why is that that's not how GURPS works. Nothing in the rules supports that interpretation, and it further doesn't make any logical sense, so it's obviously wrong.

As for 'dragon breaths down a hallway', in that case the roll is to see if the dragon actually breaths perfectly down the hallway or if he instead fires off-center and the flame wastes itself on a wall or something. You could just as well ask about firing a gun down a hallway; it's still possible to hit the floor, ceiling, or walls if you miss. Also, realize that the cone won't cover the entirety of the hallway until its far enough away, and a small deviation from the perfect angle can mean a large deviation in how far away the flame blast hits at 100 yards.

(note: this assumes that the flame breath doesn't bounce around off the walls and instead just goes right through them, as GURPS doesn't have rules for flame blasts/explosions in tight spaces that I know of, or at least that work with the cone rules)
Langy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2013, 08:21 AM   #48
Langy
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: CA
Default Re: Targeting cone attacks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnome View Post
That makes sense, but what if my dragon doesn't care who he hits? He's aiming at the Barbarian, but he's happy to hit any and all other who may happen to end up in the cone. He scores a hit on the Barbarian. Now should I figure out what he would have had to roll in order to hit another target somewhere behind the Barbarian, see what he rolled against that, and use the scatter rules from there? What if the dragon doesn't want to hit any other targets; rather he wants to hit the Barbarian and deliberately miss the friendly Dragon-born standing in the background?
Adjudicate it entirely how you please as the GM. There are no guidelines in the RAW for that. Deliberately hitting a target has definite guidelines; hitting by accident, not so much.

Quote:
Related question: are these your house rules, or do you think the RAW really implies all of this complexity with respect to multiple targets?
Absolutely, the RAW implies this complexity.
Langy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2013, 01:25 PM   #49
Gnome
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Cambridge, MA
Default Re: Targeting cone attacks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Langy View Post
Adjudicate it entirely how you please as the GM. There are no guidelines in the RAW for that. Deliberately hitting a target has definite guidelines; hitting by accident, not so much.
Then this is only true for cones! With area effect attacks, you aim at an area and hit a circle around that. With a regular ranged attack, there are explicit rules for accidentally hitting someone. So it would seem that only with cones is there a mystery about whether or not I hit multiple targets when aiming for one.
That seems weird to me. I'm still inclined to think of it more like an area attack with a conical area. Which is consistent with it being priced similarly to area effect, although I suppose the total area a typical cone covers is much larger...
Gnome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2013, 03:39 PM   #50
kirbwarrior
 
kirbwarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dreamland
Default Re: Targeting cone attacks

Rereading over cones, they seem to be half-ranged attacks half-area attacks. So, I think the best way to deal with them (this keeps what I can gather from the rules the same, and makes it so cones makes sense);

Figure where the furthest spot the cone can hit.
Take the penalty for distance (this does not make critical failures happen)
Add +4 for hitting a hex (as per B414)
You may aim. (I'm not sure if Cone Attacks should keep 1/2 range or not)
When (or if, if you have high skill) you miss, use Scatter rules as per B414.
Lastly, line up your cone based on where you hit.

Let's take unaltered IA and add Cone 5. We have Acc3, Max 100.

We aim turn 1.
Turn 2, we shoot 100yds away. We get +3 for aiming, +4 for hex, -10 for distance. We didn't buy up DX, so we are rolling against a 7.
We roll 10. Missing by 3 yards, wherever we aimed, that is the end spot for the cone. We rolled a 5 on scatter, so it shoots left 3 yds.
Now we look at the barbarian that was sitting in that direction 20yds away. Since he is less than 1/5 distance away and we missed by only 3 yds, he gets hit. There's no way we could possibly miss him.

Now let's say we rolled a 16 and didn't aim. We missed by 12. We would veer far off course at the end, but since the cone is a yard wide at 20yds, we only barely missed the barbarian (My math is a bit fuzzy. Maybe we did hit him. I don't remember if we use sine or cosine here, but having a grid makes this much easier).

But this is a dragon we are talking about. Let's say it has Innate Attack: Breathe at 15. Even with the total -3, he could roll a 16 to still hit the barbarian. And if we are shooting down a hall, if we miss by less than the cone's width, we would still hit the entire hallway. That dragon could roll a 16 and bake a 100yd long 1yd wide hallway.

(This would be a lot easier to explain with a grid, but should be easy enough to visualize)

My point is, it seems like you should 'attack' as though it's a ranged attack, but then put down the 'area' before figuring out what actually happens.

If we wanted to get even more mathy, let's say we are attacking the barbarian directly, and don't care one tiny bit what's behind him (we are a dragon, after all).
Roll as normal to hit him (15 skill, -6 for distance, +1 for SM, We didn't bother to aim or to think to hit the ground where he stands. He insulted our treasure).
Roll against a 10. But we rolled 12! We missed by two. To keep the cone consistent, we'd roll scatter as though it were at the edge of the cone. But right now all we need is to care about the barbarian. Since he was 1/5 the max distance away, we miss by only 1/5 the margin of failure, rounded down (for keeping in with how it would work at distance). Since we now only missed by 2/5 of a yard, it would still hit him. If the GM actually cared where the end of the cone is, it's 2 yds off of a straight line through the barbarian.
Now the cones turns into an area, and the barbarian must either Dodge and Drop to get out of the way.

Does that make sense? The way i explained above was to make it so shooting directly or indirectly at the barbarian results in about the same thing happening. If there is a guy standing 80yds away, it's his fault for being too close to a dragon. And we can figure out, from the new area, whether or not that second guy is in it. Most importantly, you only aim to hit ONE thing. Everything else is determined by this new area as it is now a cone, not a ranged attack.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmicfish View Post
While I do not think that GURPS is perfect I do think that it is more balanced than what I am likely to create by GM fiat.
kirbwarrior 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 07:39 AM.


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