Hit Location Limitation

[Saabre]

Is there a limitation already for having to hit a target in a particular hit location for the power to successfully activate. Specifically I'm trying to make an Affliction that causes a Heart Attack, and the target has to be hit in the vitals/heart.

[Juca]

Maybe you can extrapolate from the "partial" limitation from Damage Resistance, where the limitation is worth "-10%" times the penalty to hit the location.

[Humabout]

I would probably peg that at -15%, based on the pricing for Accurate, Reliable, Inaccurate, and Resistible. It appears that +/-1 to use equates to +/-5%. Vitals are -3 to hit, so -3*5% = -15%. If you have to poke someone in the hand, it'd be -4*5% = -20%. Seems logical enough.

Don't ask me what it'd cost for an ability that requires you to poke someone in the shin, though. (Thankfully) I haven't had to deal with someone asking the penalty to hit part of a hit location, though I'd make the argument that an addition -1 should cover it, based on the Abdomen being a sublocation of the torso.

[PK]

Originally Posted by Humabout

It appears that +/-1 to use equates to +/-5%.

This is not the case. +1 equates to +5%, but -3 equates to -5% (see Hard to Use from GURPS Powers). This is because it's easy to exploit such "use penalties." As a general rule, it's not safe to assume that pricing is symmetrical to add and remove certain things. Compare Extra Arm 1 [10] to One Arm [-20].

So in keeping with that, I'd suggest dividing the hit location penalty by 3, rounding to the nearest whole number, and multiplying that by -5%. So that gives:

HLP* / Limitation
0 to -1 / 0%
-2 to -4 / -5%
-5 to -7 / -10%
-8 to -10 / -15%

* Hit Location Penalty

However, if your attack also gets standard benefits from striking that hit location (e.g., your Impaling Attack is required to hit the vitals, where it gets a x3 wounding modifier per the standard rules), then it's far less of a limitation. (After all, when you have an Impaling Attack, you usually want to attack the vitals!) In such a case, I'd suggest halving the effective hit location penalty (rounding up) before consulting the table above.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Humabout

(Thankfully) I haven't had to deal with someone asking the penalty to hit part of a hit location, though I'd make the argument that an addition -1 should cover it, based on the Abdomen being a sublocation of the torso.

There's some generic rules in High Tech that are pretty easy to extrapolate from. In fact, I did that previously on the forum I'm nearly certain. Gimme 5 minutes to google it.

AHA, yes, here it is:


There's a generalized rule in High Tech about targeting any X in 6 sub hit location (in the context of partial armor coverage, which is basically exactly what we're talking about here).

Originally Posted by GURPS High Tech page 69

An attacker can attempt to strike around partial armor. This gives a penalty over and above that for hit location: -( n-1), but never better than -1. That is, -1 for 1/6 or 2/6, -2 for 3/6, -3 for 4/6, or -4 for 5/6.

This is for targeting "any in this list that are uncovered", rather than a specific location, but it looks like an area that covers 1/6 is -4, an area that covers 2/6 is -3, an area that covers 3/6 is -2 and an area that covers 4 or 5 in 6 is -1.

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by Rev. Pee Kitty

This is not the case. +1 equates to +5%, but -3 equates to -5% (see Hard to Use from GURPS Powers). This is because it's easy to exploit such "use penalties." As a general rule, it's not safe to assume that pricing is symmetrical to add and remove certain things. Compare Extra Arm 1 [10] to One Arm [-20].

So in keeping with that, I'd suggest dividing the hit location penalty by 3, rounding to the nearest whole number, and multiplying that by -5%. So that gives:

HLP* / Limitation
0 to -1 / 0%
-2 to -4 / -5%
-5 to -7 / -10%
-8 to -10 / -15%

* Hit Location Penalty

However, if your attack also gets standard benefits from striking that hit location (e.g., your Impaling Attack is required to hit the vitals, where it gets a x3 wounding modifier per the standard rules), then it's far less of a limitation. (After all, when you have an Impaling Attack, you usually want to attack the vitals!) In such a case, I'd suggest halving the effective hit location penalty (rounding up) before consulting the table above.

At first I thought this limitation seemed a bit undercosted, but then I remembered Reliable, and we don't want Reliable canceling out the limitation. Otherwise, we have an attack that can only hit the vitals but at no penalty, at the same price.

[Humabout]

Wow, I totally sucked with that answer! My thinking for -1 = -5% was based more on Innacurate being -5%/-1, and Resistible equating to a similar value on a resistance roll. Of course, I totally missed Hard to Use . . . Thanks for the correction!

Bruno, thanks for that bit. I never really think to check High Tech for those sorts of rules. Frankly, I rarely do modern games, so I don't check High Tech for much in general. I think someone pointed me to the frostbite rules in there once before, too. Gotta crack that one open more often.