Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-15-2004, 10:14 AM   #41
Eljay451
 
Eljay451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chanhassen, MN
Default Re: Posture question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm
Per p. B548...
Thank you for the clarification. The wording on p548 and p551 confused me, especially when taken together. I didn't know what the "extra" on p548 was regarding.

(I'm more easily confused than average. As demonstrated. Yet again. Not the first time, won't be the last.)

The -2 is for torso, legs and groin. Is it also for "untargetted" attacks? (I presume that the -2 penalty to the attack against the target would apply for an untargetted attack. I use combat lite, so I ask purely out of academic interest.)

Last edited by Eljay451; 10-15-2004 at 10:35 AM. Reason: add question
Eljay451 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2004, 11:28 AM   #42
garyb
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Florida
Default Re: Posture question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm
In other words: -2 to hit a crouching, kneeling, or sitting target all the time; -2 to hit a prone target at an oblique angle; +0 to hit a prone target more-or-less frome above. No -4.
So, according to the rules, there's very little advantage to 'dropping' during a fire-fight?(only -2 to the body, same as crouching)

In accordance with these rules- it doesn't make sense that every milaritary training in the world, that teaches it's soldiers to 'hit-the-ground' are putting their boys at risk... I mean they should all stay crouching... unless they want to make their heads the prime target...

Actually, it's worse, they're at -3 to dodge on top of that... a body both on the ground and at a distance should receive better 'to-hit' penalities... don't you think...?

please tell me the logic...
garyb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2004, 12:02 PM   #43
stilleon
 
stilleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Default Re: Posture question

Quote:
Originally Posted by garyb
So, according to the rules, there's very little advantage to 'dropping' during a fire-fight?(only -2 to the body, same as crouching)
You're right- the disadvanatage is not being able to dodge very well. You can brace and get a +1 to hit when aiming plus you cannotbe hit in the vitals. However, you dodge and drop you are mine, even if I am at range, you are going down!

Cinematically, it doesn't feel right.
stilleon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2004, 12:03 PM   #44
Sam Baughn
 
Sam Baughn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and some other bits.
Default Re: Posture question

Quote:
Originally Posted by garyb
please tell me the logic...
Dropping gives you an additional bonus to dodge, on the turn that you drop.

If there is any low cover between you and the firer, you are concealed by it when you drop prone.

You can't get hit in your legs, which are often unarmoured.

You can brace your rifle or machine gun in order to return fire more accurately.
Sam Baughn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2004, 12:07 PM   #45
Eljay451
 
Eljay451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chanhassen, MN
Default Re: Posture question

Quote:
Originally Posted by garyb
So, according to the rules, there's very little advantage to 'dropping' during a fire-fight?(only -2 to the body, same as crouching)
The drop-and-dodge gives +3 bonus to dodge (p377), which is, of course, a one-time defense. That's an advantage. Plus, afterword, you are at -2 to be hit (granted, which is the same as crouching); plus (likely) cannot be hit in the groin, legs or feet; plus you can put your head down so as not to be hit or targetted in the neck, eyes or face.
Quote:
In accordance with these rules- it doesn't make sense that every milaritary training in the world, that teaches it's soldiers to 'hit-the-ground' are putting their boys at risk... I mean they should all stay crouching... unless they want to make their heads the prime target...
Crouching doesn't give the other extra protection options mentioned.
Quote:
Actually, it's worse, they're at -3 to dodge on top of that... a body both on the ground and at a distance should receive better 'to-hit' penalities... don't you think...?
In my opinion, I think that a small cross section presented whilst laying on the ground toward the on-coming fire (including the oblique angles mentioned by Kromm) should give the person a SM -4 (1.5 linear feet, for width shoulder-to-shoulder) instead of a SM -2 (3 linear feet).

If being fired upon from the side, then a SM -2.

The situation doesn't come up often in the high fantasy campaign I run.
Eljay451 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2004, 12:18 PM   #46
garyb
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Florida
Default Re: Posture question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eljay451
The drop-and-dodge gives +3 bonus to dodge (p377), which is, of course, a one-time defense. That's an advantage.
For one second it is... then you're dead...because why would I aim at your body when your head is almost as easy to hit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eljay45
Crouching doesn't give the other extra protection options mentioned.
I thought you get -2 to hit the torso of a crouching person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eljay45
In my opinion, I think that a small cross section presented whilst laying on the ground toward the on-coming fire (including the oblique angles mentioned by Kromm) should give the person a SM -4 (1.5 linear feet, for width shoulder-to-shoulder) instead of a SM -2 (3 linear feet).
If being fired upon from the side, then a SM -2.
this seems pretty sound...
garyb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2004, 12:29 PM   #47
Eljay451
 
Eljay451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chanhassen, MN
Default Re: Posture question

Quote:
Originally Posted by garyb
I thought you get -2 to hit the torso of a crouching person.
Correct, -2 to hit the torso, groin, legs of a crouching person.

Crouching doesn't give the other extra protection options mentioned for a person lying down.
Eljay451 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2004, 01:24 PM   #48
lawman
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: Posture question

I've been thinking about this off and on all day. I'm still undecided, so don't take this as an argument for for or against, or anything. These are just my thoughts, currently.

When you shoot someone in Gurps, are you aiming for them or for their body parts?

In 3E, the answer was always body parts. So the rule seems to make sense in that regard. Certain body parts are smaller so their harder to hit. The head is just as big on a standing target as it is on a prone target, more or less.

There does need to be some clarification that the GM has to decide which hit locations are available. the 4E rule seems to me to assume the head is towards the attack.

For instance, a prone target being shot from the left or right would have legs just as 'big' as he was standing. His torso might appear thinner, though. So should they always have the extra -2, or should they have any penalty at all?

In 4E, Random Hit Location works a little different. Since the Torso is going to be at an extra -2, I think that the random hit location should suffer the same penalty on the attack roll.

You could roll Random Hit Location and let the GM decide if the target you rolled is available or if another body part is providing 'cover'. So if the target has his head towards you, and you roll the legs, the GM could say the torso was providing cover, depending on the angle of the attack.

So, in 4E you might be shooting the entire body, and not just at body parts the way you did in 3E.

Essentially, in 4E you are at -4 to hit lying down, except certain body parts are just as easy to hit, depending on how you are lying relative to the attacker. I think more text could have been dedicated to the concept, instead of seeming (my opinion) to assume the head was towards the attacker when lying down.

If you think about the rule in a different way, you could almost read it "Lying Down: -4 or Hit Location, whichever is greater, or -2 using Random Hit Location." Unless I'm mistaken, it comes out the same as what the book says. I would have made it -4 on the Random Hit Location, but I'd have to playtest that to see how it worked out.
__________________
LAWMAN

--You could have a rule for everything, but then you'd have a rule for everything.
lawman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2004, 02:09 PM   #49
Kromm
GURPS Line Editor
 
Kromm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
Default Re: Posture question

Quote:
Originally Posted by garyb
So, according to the rules, there's very little advantage to 'dropping' during a fire-fight?(only -2 to the body, same as crouching)
You're forgetting about three things:

1. Cover: Going prone means you can capitalize on even very minimal cover. A log that wouldn't hide a crouching man will hide a prone one. See Cover (p. B407). And diving prone lets you reach cover, too; see Diving for Cover (p. B377).

2. Protecting Your Vital Bits: When prone, your groin, legs, and feet aren't valid targets. If you put your head down, neither are your neck, eyes, and face. See the note under the Posture Table (p. B551). That's a lot of extra protection right there!

3. Getting Out of the Way: Diving prone is good for +3 to dodge; see Dodge and Drop (p. B377). In effect, there's such a vertical gap between a standing or crouching position and a prone one that going prone is a great way to avoid an attack aimed at your center of mass while standing. Dropping into a crouch isn't . . . it puts your head right in the line of fire.
__________________
Sean "Dr. Kromm" Punch <kromm@sjgames.com>
GURPS Line Editor, Steve Jackson Games
My LiveJournal [Just GURPS News][Just The Company]
Kromm is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2004, 02:11 PM   #50
Kromm
GURPS Line Editor
 
Kromm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
Default Re: Posture question

Quote:
Originally Posted by stilleon
You're right- the disadvanatage is not being able to dodge very well. You can brace and get a +1 to hit when aiming plus you cannotbe hit in the vitals. However, you dodge and drop you are mine, even if I am at range, you are going down!

Cinematically, it doesn't feel right.
Please see my post above. You're ignoring a number of very important rules. If you use them all, diving for cover is very valuable because it lets you get +3 to avoid this attack and very likely puts you out of sight of future attacks.
__________________
Sean "Dr. Kromm" Punch <kromm@sjgames.com>
GURPS Line Editor, Steve Jackson Games
My LiveJournal [Just GURPS News][Just The Company]
Kromm is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.