Hit Location Symmetry

[FeiLin]

On the hit location table (B552) it seems that right leg is 6-7 whereas left leg is 13-14. My math says that's 12% and 17%, respectively. Arms seem to be similar. I tried quick googling, searching the forum and the faq for "hit location", but didn't find anything about this. Have I missed something or why the asymmetry?

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by FeiLin

On the hit location table (B552) it seems that right leg is 6-7 whereas left leg is 13-14. My math says that's 12% and 17%, respectively. Arms seem to be similar. I tried quick googling, searching the forum and the faq for "hit location", but didn't find anything about this. Have I missed something or why the asymmetry?

They are the same. Go to anydice.com and look at the numbers for 13,14, 6, and 7.

Any two results on 3d6 that add up to 21 have the same probability of occurring.

[Gumby Bush]

Originally Posted by ericthered

They are the same. Go to anydice.com and look at the numbers for 13,14, 6, and 7.

Any two results on 3d6 that add up to 21 have the same probability of occurring.

Eh? 6+13 = 19

By Anydice:
6: 4.63
7: 6.94
= 11.57

13: 9.72
14: 6.94
= 16.66

Which round to the OP's numbers.

[Ulzgoroth]

I'd guess that table is a pretty old piece of legacy that hasn't been reconsidered in a while, though I wasn't around to know that.

Asymmetry checks out - it looks like it's because Torso+groin gets three out of the four biggest slots, and there wasn't anything else to stick in the fourth of them. I can't see how higher odds of hitting the left side limbs would be simulating anything, anyway...

Originally Posted by Gumby Bush

Eh? 6+13 = 19

You should be comparing 6 and 14, and 7 and 13, not 6 and 13. But you're right about the imbalance of the ranges.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by Gumby Bush

Eh? 6+13 = 19

And that should have clued me in.

[Gumby Bush]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

You should be comparing 6 and 14, and 7 and 13, not 6 and 13. But you're right about the imbalance of the ranges.

Yes, those are what ought to line up. The point was that to get 21 where you can, you have to get 19 in the other place.

I could have been really thorough and pointed out that (6+7+13+14)/2 != 21 which has the same entailment and covers all possible ways of adding pairs, but isn't as clear.

I don't use the table for much, but a simple solution would be to count all leg locations as "legs" and all arm locations as "arms" then roll 1d: evens left, odds right.

[Armin]

I always assumed that was because one arm and one leg were considered to be 'leading' and therefore hit more.

[Stormcrow]

One does not typically stand perfectly perpendicular to the direction toward one's opponent. A few percent variation for the sake of a simple 3d table shouldn't be too worrisome. If it bothers you anyway, swap left and right when considering someone who is left-handed.

[Rupert]

The table, if it's more than simply unbalanced because of a lack of 'room' to place everything, seems to assume you're leading with your left said, as you would if you were a right-hander with a shield and one-handed weapon (or a rifle at the shoulder). If it bothers people, they could just reverse the sides for targets that are presenting the right side rather than the left.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Armin

I always assumed that was because one arm and one leg were considered to be 'leading' and therefore hit more.

Yes, I recall that explanation from some years back. Though, I'll be deuced if I can find it anymore (it may have been in Roleplayer or the online Pyramid).