11-12-2018, 10:44 PM | #1 |
Join Date: Apr 2016
|
Vitals shots vs. Size&Speed/Range table
Just a thought that occurred to me;
Why don't vitals shots modifiers (p, 399) correspond to the modifiers for size (p, 550)? Seems that a called shot to the eye should have the same modifier as shooting a 1" target. |
11-12-2018, 11:10 PM | #2 |
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: Vitals shots vs. Size&Speed/Range table
-11 to hit instead of -9? I don't hate the idea, but let's break this down first. The largest possible measurement of the human eye I can see at https://www.hindawi.com/journals/joph/2014/503645/ is 27mm transverse which works out to 1.06299 inches.
B19 says "If a creature’s longest dimension falls between two entries on the table, base its SM on the higher value." so this would be bumped up to -10 for 1.5 inches. Then you have "Box-, sphere-, or blob-shaped characters add +2 to SM; elongated boxes, like most ground vehicles, add +1." so maybe the +1 (SM-9 for 2 inches) default hit location is because eyes are considered elongated boxes? Tranverse diameter can be as low as 21mm (0.826772 inches) and averages at 24.2 (0.9527559 inches) though, which seems to support a baseline of -11 like you say. With the rules being designed assuming the largest possible human eye, maybe "small eyes, -1 to hit" could be some kind of perk? Eyes which are a total of -10 to hit can already be attained by humans who are SM-1 overall with the Dwarfism trait, too. Last edited by Plane; 11-12-2018 at 11:17 PM. |
11-12-2018, 11:26 PM | #3 |
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France
|
Re: Vitals shots vs. Size&Speed/Range table
That question has already been discussed a lot in the past and the main answer is: because hit location penalties are not given for an unmoving target but for a man, in front of you, during combat - which means moving and maintaining a guard
So, in other situations, they have to be modified a bit. |
11-13-2018, 12:26 AM | #4 |
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: OK
|
Re: Vitals shots vs. Size&Speed/Range table
This has always bothered me too. I wrote a blog post on this a while back where I attempt to address the issue.
__________________
"For the rays, to speak properly, are not colored. In them there is nothing else than a certain power and disposition to stir up a sensation of this or that color." —Isaac Newton, Optics My blog. |
11-13-2018, 12:35 AM | #5 |
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: Vitals shots vs. Size&Speed/Range table
Since the largest human eye's largest dimension is under 1.5 inches (SM-10) and "elongated box SM+1" gets it to the -9, are you saying that eyes are more like "blob-shaped SM+2" (base -8) and the -1 that brings it to a -9 final is due to speed/range?
Not taking distance into account (distance in yards is added to yards/second on the table) to get a -1 penalty for Speed alone is 2<x<3 with x being yards per second. For someone who doesn't leave their own hex, although the final relative movement is capped at 1yd, the sum of movement vectors back and forth throughout that second could exceed that. If rules assume that people are doing a variety of things to incur the -1, then a +1 to hit those who are totalling less than 2y/s worth of sum movements. Or, if you take the basic hit locations to assume an unmoving target, maybe use the distance penalties even for melee combat and for attacks on the head, supplement distance by Basic Speed multiplied by each headbutt, retreat or dodge against head/neck/torso attacks you've done in the last second. Could do similar for limbs but with attacks/parries in place of headbutts and "dodge against attacks on that limb" in place of dodge against head/neck/torso. |
11-13-2018, 01:16 AM | #6 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Vitals shots vs. Size&Speed/Range table
The big reason for the mismatch is because the hit location modifiers predate the SSR and include implicit modifiers for how easy they are to protect. As another historical oddity, the torso is +0 to be hit, and really should be no better than -1.
On the blob-shaped issue, my preferred rule is to average short and long SSR and add 2, rounding up, so the +2 applies if the short dimension is no more than 1 SM less than the long, +1 if no more than 3. |
11-13-2018, 01:36 AM | #7 |
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: Vitals shots vs. Size&Speed/Range table
-1 to hit the torso would match up with the -10% discount for Torso Only on DR, at least. So would rolling to hit at -0 assume taking Random Hit Location? What would you charge for targeting torso sublocations like the chest (normally -0) or the abdomen (normally -1) ? Perhaps -2 and -3? In that case perhaps increase the penalty for hitting groin or vitals from -3 to -4 (like an extremity), extremities from -4 to -5 to tie with the face?
|
11-13-2018, 06:12 AM | #8 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: Vitals shots vs. Size&Speed/Range table
Quote:
For the record, here's a paste of the attempted comment: === I'm all for reworked target location penalties based on actual size/shape. Overall it looks good. A question about your example, though, of the SM -5 skull-shaped robot vs the game's canonical -7 TH skull location. You call that a mismatch, but I wonder whether you're taking the RAW skull hit location to mean the actual entire skull. Because my understanding is that the game's skull location – by design, and setting strange terminology aside – isn't actually the skull, but rather what should be called the skullcap. Just the brain area, that is – which could be considered about half the size of the whole skull, and thus -7 instead of -5 TH. So with that in mind, I never considered skull location TH to be odd relative to general head TH. That aside, things look good. (Especially torso – it's a subset of the entire body, so a TH penalty only makes sense, though I can understand the simplicity value of RAW ignoring that.)
__________________
T Bone GURPS stuff and more at the Games Diner: http://www.gamesdiner.com Twitter: @Gamesdiner | RSS: here ⬅︎ Updated RSS link | This forum: Site updates thread (occasionally updated) (Latest goods on site: GLAIVE Mini levels up to v2.4. Update to melee weapon design tool, with more example weapons and commentary.) |
|
11-13-2018, 08:14 AM | #9 | |
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Vermont, USA
|
Re: Vitals shots vs. Size&Speed/Range table
relevant krommquote
Quote:
|
|
11-13-2018, 11:28 AM | #10 | ||
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: OK
|
Re: Vitals shots vs. Size&Speed/Range table
Quote:
Quote:
The size of the area the game calls the skull depends largely on the angle. It appears smaller from the front than it does from the back and the sides. I believe that's what I was taking into account. I might just be wrong, though. I'm certainly open to that possibility. My goal in making my blog posts is always to open a discussion--not to present my way as the best way.
__________________
"For the rays, to speak properly, are not colored. In them there is nothing else than a certain power and disposition to stir up a sensation of this or that color." —Isaac Newton, Optics My blog. |
||
Tags |
cranium, neurocranium, ranged combat, size modifer, size modifier, vitals |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|