[Rules question] Dragon breath

[Captain-Captain]

Originally Posted by TJA

Now, we had a game again.

Several questions popped up.
Maybe you have an idea about the answers?

2)
A dragon used his flaming breath to attack the players.
It was 20yd long and 1yd at it´s end.

Despite digging the rules, i was not sure if that is handled as a Melee attack, a ranged attack (like Innate Attack) or like an Area attack.
Can it miss? Would it use the Scatter rules?

Also, what about the damage?

I read, that this would be an Large Area Injury, so we used the average of the Torso DR and least armored bodypart.
But WHAT part?
The eyes? Do they count?
Or just the least armored classic bodypart (leg, arm, hand, foot, head)?
What about other hit locations?!?

We finally said, that this fire will enter the eye sockets and use (0 + Torso) / 2.

How do you handle this?
Is there an official rule from where to learn this?

I see what you described as an area attack 1 hex area, cone (well cylinder, technically) with the attack guided by Innate Attack (Breath).

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Gurps Fan

I also had a question like that, so I asked Kromm about it:

I can't reconcile those 'answers' with the books at all. It even looks like a direct contradiction of the 'Targeting Chinks in Armor' box.

Am I the only one totally bewildered by this?

[Gurps Fan]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I can't reconcile those 'answers' with the books at all. It even looks like a direct contradiction of the 'Targeting Chinks in Armor' box.

Am I the only one totally bewildered by this?

For your information, below is the follow-up correspondences with Kromm:

Originally Posted by Me

Thank you for clarification about headgear DR, doctor. In fact, I --
and the rest of my gaming group -- thought that "headgears without
'eyes' location provide no DR for eyes (whether they cover 'face' or
not), and only ones with 'eyes' protect the eyes with their DR (but DR
is halved when a foe targets the chink)", but it's proven wrong!

I'm not trying to make an excuse but, in the description of "Location"
on p.B282, "face" is defined as *face (the face, excluding the eyes)*
and listed separately from "eyes" . . . it's very difficult for me to
interpret the text as meaning that the "face" implies some protection
of eyes.

Please allow me to ask three more questions from my gaming group:

1. If I want to strike an eye of a foe that wears a head armor with
"eyes" (like Ballistic Helmet Visor), which penalty should I roll to
hit at, -9 or -10?

2. Assume that I want to strike an eye of a foe that wears a head
armor without "eyes" (like Greathelm), and I'm trying to breach the
armor plate over the eye with brute force (rather than slipping the
blade into the eyeslit dexterously). Can I attempt to hit the eye at
-9 instead of -10, accepting that the foe enjoys his headgear's full
DR over the eyes?

3. About natural DR, as opposed to worn headgears: the descripiton of
the Damage Resistance advantage says, "natural DR *does not* protect
your eyes" (p.B46).

3.a. Assume that I wear no armor but I have the unmodified DR 10
advantage; it provides zero DR for my eyes. Then, if I'm caught in an
area attack, do I get only DR (10+0)/2 = 5, since my 'effective DR' is
the average of my torso DR 10 and the least protected location, which
is the eyes (per p.B400)?

3.b. If I want my DR to protect my eyes (like Ballistic Helmet
Visor), how much percentage is it worth as enhancement on DR? And how
much, if a foe can target my eyes through the eyeslit halving
effective DR (like Greathelm)?

Originally Posted by Kromm

> I'm not trying to make an excuse but, in the description of
> "Location" on p.B282, "face" is defined as *face (the face,
> excluding the eyes)* and listed separately from "eyes" . . . it's
> very difficult for me to interpret the text as meaning that the
> "face" implies some protection of eyes.

No, you're right . . . it could be clearer. No first printing -- even
of a new edition -- is ever perfect.

> 1. If I want to strike an eye of a foe that wears a head armor with
> "eyes" (like Ballistic Helmet Visor), which penalty should I roll to
> hit at, -9 or -10?

I'd call it -9, since you're not aiming for eyeslits for lower DR but
just hitting the armor in front of the eyes.

> 2. Assume that I want to strike an eye of a foe that wears a head
> armor without "eyes" (like Greathelm), and I'm trying to breach the
> armor plate over the eye with brute force (rather than slipping the
> blade into the eyeslit dexterously). Can I attempt to hit the eye at
> -9 instead of -10, accepting that the foe enjoys his headgear's full
> DR over the eyes?

Yes. This is the same answer as to #1, really.

> 3.a. Assume that I wear no armor but I have the unmodified DR 10
> advantage; it provides zero DR for my eyes. Then, if I'm caught in an
> area attack, do I get only DR (10+0)/2 = 5, since my 'effective DR'
> is the average of my torso DR 10 and the least protected location,
> which is the eyes (per p.B400)?

I would use DR 10. "Eyes" are sub-location of "face" -- not a major hit
location of their own.

> 3.b. If I want my DR to protect my eyes (like Ballistic Helmet
> Visor), how much percentage is it worth as enhancement on DR?

That's the main effect of Force Field (+20%). That adds 1 point/level.
Or you could add Nictitating Membrane [1/level]; see p. B71.

> And how much, if a foe can target my eyes through the eyeslit halving
> effective DR (like Greathelm)?

That rule is for armor. Hitting the eyes is at -9 otherwise, and the
eyes would have no DR.

[Gurps Fan]

The conclusion distilled from all these can be summarized as follows.

If your foe wears a TL3 Face Mask, which has DR 4 on "face" . . .

• You can target his face at -5, accepting that he enjoy the full DR 4.
• You can target his face at -10 (chink), halving his effective DR to 2.
• You can target his eye at -9, accepting that he enjoy the full DR 4.
• You can target his eye at -10 (chink), halving his effective DR to 2.

If your foe wears a TL8 Ballistic Helmet + Visor, which has DR 10 on "eyes, face" . . .

• You can target his face at -5, accepting that he enjoy the full DR 10.
• You can target his face at -10 (chink), halving his effective DR to 5.
• You can target his eye at -9, accepting that he enjoy the full DR 10.
• You cannot target his eye at -10 -- headgears with "eyes" location have no effective chink for eyes.

[TJA]

If that is "true", we have a serious problem with the description of both armor and hit-locations in Basic!

And no, NOT in a first printing, but back to all versions of GURPS i know!

:-|

So far, our group always assume DR 0 for a hit to the eyes at -10 (at TL 3).
And this forum is full of topics with that assumption!

[TJA]

Checking the Armor descriptions, i found the following:

B282 says about equipment, that there are the following general armor-locations (containing special armor-locations):

Head (containing skull, eyes and face)
Body (containing neck, torso and groin)
Limbs (containing arms and legs)
Full Suit (containing neck, torso, groin, arms, hands, legs and feet)

There can be armor that protects not a general, but a special armor-location (like the feet).

The armor itself, listed in the following table may say "Body Armor", but does NOT necessarily protect the neck! The neck needs to be mentioned seperately.
Beside the name NO Body armor protects the neck!
Already that is quite strange, IMO.

The same is true for the eyes: NO headgear up to TL 5 protects the eyes!

I cannot see any reason to give the eyes more than DR 0.

On B399 that get´s even more clear: A hit to the eyes is like a hit to the skull, but without the extra DR 2!

So, i cannot understand most of Kromms output above.

We are at 4E - it cannot be that players need to make a degree at GURPS.
Even reading a book or several does not answer some very basic questions, it seems.

[Lupo]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I can't reconcile those 'answers' with the books at all. It even looks like a direct contradiction of the 'Targeting Chinks in Armor' box.

Am I the only one totally bewildered by this?

No, I am very surprised too.

In GURPS 3e, "Eyeslits" were a "special" hit location: you could target the eyes of an armored man, bypassing its DR (not simply halving it).

I've always assumed the same was true in GURPS 4e. Or possibly, that since low-tech helms DO NOT list "eyes" as a protected location, that you could target eyes at the ordinary -9, ignoring DR, even against armored fighters.

The idea that you CANNOT target chinks in armor for headgear that lists "eyes" as a protected location, looks totally alien and unreasonable to me.
I've always assumed (and I think that 99% of GURPS players did the same) that the "Targeting Chinks in Armor" rule was generic; e.g., that you could target any location, through any armor, at -10 and thus halve DR.

I really think this to be a "rules change" by Kromm, not just a "clarification"...

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by TJA

If that is "true", we have a serious problem with the description of both armor and hit-locations in Basic!

And no, NOT in a first printing, but back to all versions of GURPS i know!

Actually, YES only in the first printing - previous editions of GURPS do not count, they have different rules. Again, I drag out Armor Weights and point out that just because Plate weighed twice as much as it should in the last 3.5 editions of GURPS, doesn't mean 4e can't change it.

Ditto this.

[TJA]

Previous editions count for those who use them, of course.

Beside, i just cannot comprehende your state of mind.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by TJA

Previous editions count for those who use them, of course.

People using previous editions are not affected by the rules changes implemented in 4e. Nor are people playing D&D, MERP, or various other games. Basically, I'm confused why these innocent bystanders playing 3e GURPS got dragged into the conversation.

Originally Posted by TJA

Beside, i just cannot comprehende your state of mind.

The previous editions had eyeslits as a -10 hit location that completely bypassed DR.

This was CHANGED for 4e. It was changed sort of unclearly, and needs clarification, but it is a change for this edition. The fact that previous editions did it differently doesn't some how overwrite the change.

It does leave a lot of people misreading the rule in 4e, assuming that it was like 3e revised, and it did leave a lot of 3e revised "legacy" text around to confuse us and make us think that SJG didn't intend to change the rule.

But apparently they did.