Hit location miss by 1

[CelticDruid]

On some hit locations in Martial Arts (P137), if you miss the location (ie. the ear) by 1, then you hit the torso. Wouldnt it be more logical to hit the the location it is attached to? For example, if you miss the ear by 1, then you hit the skull. Example, if you miss the nose by 1, then you kit the face.

[vierasmarius]

I think this was done for balance reasons rather than realism. For example, the Jaw is -6 to hit, compared to the Face at -5. The only difference between the two is that the Jaw gives an extra -1 to knockdown rolls from crushing attacks. If a miss by 1 hit the Face instead of the Torso, there would never be a reason to aim for the Face instead of the Jaw with blunt instruments or unarmed attacks. The Ear and Nose have a slightly larger penalty (-7) but a greater effect on a hit, so again for balance a miss by 1 hits the Torso to prevent them from being over-targeted.

The joints and veins/arteries are apparently difficult enough to hit on their own (-3 relative to the limb or extremity) that it's acceptable to have a miss by 1 hit the parent limb rather than the torso.

[OldSam]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

I think this was done for balance reasons rather than realism.

Yes, I think so, too, but with respect to realism the torso hit is at least better than nothing... ;)

Of course it would be possible to add more detail with a further roll! Could be a nice solution in many cases...

For instance if you targeted at the jaw and missed by only 1, roll 1d6:
1: Completely missed the target.
2-4: Hit to the torso.
5,6: Hit to the nearest attached location. (*)

*: In this case the face.

IMHO something like that would be quite fair and a nice add-on if there is a need for more detail :)

[Kromm]

People have summed it up: If large hit location A surrounds smaller, more valuable hit location B, and the penalty to hit B is just an extra -1 or -2 relative to the penalty to hit A, then it would be bad game design to have a miss by 1 hit A. Doing that would remove most or all of the risk of taking the extra penalty to hit. On the other hand, if missing all of A by 1 hits some more distant location X, then missing B should still hit X, because otherwise there would be too much extra risk (targeting B is both -1 or -2 to hit and removes the miss by 1 effect).

[Ronin Rabbit]

Definitely not contradicting the above- all about balance. BUT if you wanted to mess with it on your own for S&G's you probably could. I'd argue the direction/momentum of the attack is a factor. If my sword swing is arced down on your ear (like I'm literally chopping it off) and I miss by 1, who is to say that -1 is towards the "inside" of my target area (to the right if left ear & vice versa) as opposed to the outside? Missing an ear with a chopping swing could VERY realistically be a hit to the torso (technically collarbone/shoulder I guess).

It probably wouldn't be the most objectionable thing in the world to declare by fiat that when an attack misses its hit location by 1 the attack actually goes to a nearby place that depends on the actual physical positions of the two people involved.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Ronin Rabbit

It probably wouldn't be the most objectionable thing in the world to declare by fiat that when an attack misses its hit location by 1 the attack actually goes to a nearby place that depends on the actual physical positions of the two people involved.

I think you'd start to discover that players' mental pictures of a fight are significantly different from each other. I've been surprised by this several times when a game has suddenly had to "zoom in" on some detail. Unless you habitually have players describe each blow in detail, you're likely to have arguments about this.

[Quixotic Qlippoth]

Originally Posted by johndallman

I think you'd start to discover that players' mental pictures of a fight are significantly different from each other. I've been surprised by this several times when a game has suddenly had to "zoom in" on some detail. Unless you habitually have players describe each blow in detail, you're likely to have arguments about this.

Maybe, maybe not. What he's describing sounds highly variable. It's going to depend on things like group dynamics and the GM's skill as a narrator.

[Pomphis]

If the hit location I hit when I miss the original target by 1 depends on how I describe my strike, I suspect my PC will announce many strikes that sound sensible in isolation, but which are not terribly realistic in an ongoing fight. This simply opens a new area for munchkinism.

[Quixotic Qlippoth]

Originally Posted by Pomphis

If the hit location I hit when I miss the original target by 1 depends on how I describe my strike, I suspect my PC will announce many strikes that sound sensible in isolation, but which are not terribly realistic in an ongoing fight. This simply opens a new area for munchkinism.

I assumed he meant that (a) character attack type (swing, thrust etc) a thrust attack at an ear that misses by one isn't going to follow the same attack trajectory as a swing attack at the ear and that (b) the position of the target would be a factor as well. A thrust attack at an opponent's flank might follow a different path than a thrust attack at the opponent's front.

Both of those make sense to me, at least as an option if you were going to go down that road. Then again, I know there are lots of uhm... "different" personality types in role playing.

Some players will take advantage of anything, some will not. Meanwhile some GMs might not let players make the attack they want because they don't feel it's "terribly realistic in an ongoing fight." ;-)

If your group has trust and they've developed a shorthand with each other you can make lot of things fly that might not work for everyone as a whole (thus where we get things like House Rules). Which is the point I was trying to make originally about RR's comment- it might work perfectly fine in his group and it might be a disaster in the OP's. I was less defending the point of different locations based on position as much as saying that the argument he made had a lot of subjective variables.

I can see a way that would work, but personally I don't mind miss by 1 hits torso. I almost always prefer simplicity because it keeps the pace better.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Quixotic Qlippoth

I can see a way that would work, but personally I don't mind miss by 1 hits torso. I almost always prefer simplicity because it keeps the pace better.

Exactly. Complicated case-handling, exceptions, modifiers, degrees of success/failure, etc. are good for times when a single task is the pivot on which the adventure turns; it keeps a dramatic moment from boiling down to "just a dice roll." Combat gets a whole complex system for this reason. However, each individual roll in combat contributes to great complexity already, so simplicity is good at that level. My personal view is that combat starts in one state, ends in another state, everything in between is a black box, and it makes sense provided that the state transition is plausible given the numbers, equipment, and training on either side.