Hit the Torso by 5+, hit the vitals instead...

[AmesJainchill]

Originally Posted by ed_209a

Since I was taught aim at a small part of a target, not the target as a whole, I would rather flip the math and say if you aim at the vitals (center-mass) and miss by 5 or less, you still hit the torso.

I like it! Maybe it should be 3 or less, like the usual hit location penalty? Hrmm. But I like it!

Semantics, yeah I know.

No, this only comes in play if you specifically aim at the vitals, which, IME, is much less often that just trying to get [torso] hits period.

I just like to have Guns-8 players using some of the same thought processes as their Guns-15 characters.

Good point.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by ed_209a

Since I was taught aim at a small part of a target, not the target as a whole, I would rather flip the math and say if you aim at the vitals (center-mass) and miss by 5 or less, you still hit the torso.

IIRC Aiming for the vitals is -3. Using the above rule all you have to do is target the vitals and you get an automatic +2 bonus to hit the torso.

Isn't there already a rule saying that if you miss the vitals by 1 point, you hit the torso instead? Miss by 2 or more, then you miss completely.

[Ultraviolet]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

IIRC Aiming for the vitals is -3. Using the above rule all you have to do is target the vitals and you get an automatic +2 bonus to hit the torso.

Isn't there already a rule saying that if you miss the vitals by 1 point, you hit the torso instead? Miss by 2 or more, then you miss completely.

Yes there is, also a rule much like it, for the skull.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

For my games, for guns and ranged weapons, any torso hit by 3+ hits the vitals instead, or I should say, "in addition."

These weapons are aimed for center of mass anyway; that's just about always the vitals.

It was recently pointed out by Icelander (IIRC) that sometimes Vitals have more DR, so this isn't always a good thing, though.

OTOH, 3pts in TA (attack/Vitals) will result in all hits going to either vitals or torso.

[chris1982]

There might be some instances where you do not want to hit the vitals but the torso only (e.g. hurt but not kill).

Rolling really good with this House rule would actually negate the result that you intended...

Besides that, there is the critical hit mechanic already in place for rewarding good rolls...

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by chris1982

There might be some instances where you do not want to hit the vitals but the torso only (e.g. hurt but not kill).

Rolling really good with this House rule would actually negate the result that you intended...

Besides that, there is the critical hit mechanic already in place for rewarding good rolls...

That's only if you apply all rules with ironclad inflexibility. If someone wants to not shoot the vitals, they can call that shot. But as ed209 says, firearms users in particular are trained to shoot for the vitals. I mean almost all modern "scoring" systems give the highest score for where the vitals would be on a human target. Firearms instructors talk about shooting for Center of Mass (Vitals).

It really IS the default option.

[ed_209a]

Originally Posted by AmesJainchill

I like it! Maybe it should be 3 or less, like the usual hit location penalty?

Mea Culpa. I meant the usual hit location penalty.

I looked at the 5+ in the title instead of looking it up myself.

[Gudiomen]

I wouldn't buy by 3+, exactly because that's the to-hit penalty. What motivation is there to try to hit the vitals on purpose, if you'll get the hit for free just attacking the torso?

5+ is kind of acceptable, because there are instances in RAW where 5+ margin is equated to a critical success, because it's still easier to actually try to hit the vitals, and 5+ margins aren't very easy to get most of the time.

[Xplo]

Originally Posted by chris1982

There might be some instances where you do not want to hit the vitals but the torso only (e.g. hurt but not kill).

IRL, using a potentially lethal attack to hurt someone just enough to disable him is always a gamble. Aiming for the torso but definitely not the vitals really shouldn't be an option in any realistic game.. or, at best, it should come with a hefty hit penalty.

Originally Posted by Gudiomen

I wouldn't buy by 3+, exactly because that's the to-hit penalty. What motivation is there to try to hit the vitals on purpose, if you'll get the hit for free just attacking the torso?

I think the point that those in favor are trying to make is that there shouldn't be any such motivation; (almost) all torso shots are aimed at center mass, and are thus actually vitals shots anyway.

I can see it both ways, really. Gritty realistic games should probably treat torso shots that hit by 3 or more as vitals hits, and vitals shots that miss by 3 or less as torso hits. Other games can use the existing rules; this makes it impossible that hostile NPCs will ever hit the vitals, as long as you don't let them target the vitals to begin with, lets people attempt that silly "shoot, but not to kill" thing that was alluded to above, and gives a slightly greater edge to highly skilled characters (who can afford to aim at the vitals deliberately, and not have to worry as much that their less-skilled opponents will get in a lucky shot).

[chris1982]

Originally Posted by Xplo

IRL, using a potentially lethal attack to hurt someone just enough to disable him is always a gamble. Aiming for the torso but definitely not the vitals really shouldn't be an option in any realistic game.. or, at best, it should come with a hefty hit penalty.

Depends on the weapon used. I can assure you I can hit you on the torso quite heaviliy without hurting your internal organs...

This "gamble" is also reflected way enough by the damage die roll.