Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

Here's what Basic Set says:
"You never have to target a hit location - you can always just strike at “whatever target presents itself.” To do so, attack with no modifier for hit location."

Question number 1. What's the point of aiming for the torso? Consider a lightly armored target: DR2 on torso and groin, DR1 on limbs and unarmored head. Why would anyone try to hit the guy's torso (let's say with a saber - cutting attack)? There's a pretty high (i'd say about 80%) chance a random hit would land elsewhere, and would produce much better results. The limbs are less armored, and a collapsed combatant with a crippled leg is pretty much out of combat. A crippled arm as well, especially right arm. The head and face are even better damage-wise. And all that without the pesky to-hit penalty!

Question number 2. Is it so hard to hit the head versus hitting arms? I've heard an opinion from a fencer that hitting the head is not harder than hitting the shoulder, and certainly easier than hitting a hand. Yet the skull is at -7 to hit.

Am I overlooking something?

Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

Well, in general, most of my players want to choose where they are aiming. And, yes, you are right in that it is not always to the torso with a cutting weapon. They'll aim for limbs that lack armour, for necks and for faces, yep.

Random hit location is not so good when you can do massive damage, though, and are facing a foe who might continue to fight after losing a limb (troll, undead, etc.). A hit to a limb is capped at HP/2+1, so if you would otherwise have done 12x1.5=18, it's a bit of a let down to be capped at 6 because you hit an arm instead of the torso.

Well, the head, as opposed to the skull, is -5. And the arms are made considerably easier to hit by the fact that in a normal combat, they are usually extended to attack one or interposed in front of the attack.

Other than that, one could suspect this oddity of being related to game balance. The penalties to hit the various hit locations were assigned a long time ago and they are a combination of various factors, including size, how much it moves around, how difficult it is to defend, etc. There's a fudge factor involved too and it's not impossible that the skull and head got higher numbers than otherwise because a hit there is often fight ending.

Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

Gotcha. Not my case though my players are low-tech, but I see your point.

The rules say it the face that's at -5. So like you can either aim for the face at -5 or the skull at -7. Does this mean you get to hit the skull at -5 if you attack from behind? Cause you can't aim for the face from behind, right?

Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

I suspect that in real life people always attack whatever presents itself, but that increases the amount of rolling that has to be done, so GURPS just says to treat the torso as the default.

There are also situations where you might want to hit the torso. See pictures of warriors with lots of armor on their sword arm or strong helmets.

Kromm has said that maneuverability and presentation are factors. The head is compact, maneuverable and comparatively far away. The arms are very maneuverable, yes, but they're right up in front during a fight and their length makes them much easier to hit.

Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

That's exactly right. GURPS Martial Arts, p. 137.

Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

Try to think of the face as the area from the chin to the eyebrows.

Think of a circle that goeas from the top of your forehead, over your ears and finishing in back right where the skull hits the neck. That would be the skull. Thats why its difficult to hit from fron but about the same as face from behind.

Nymdok

EDIT: Erp...ninjaed

Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

The only time you truly want to be SURE you're aiming for the torso is in a gunfight against someone who is either A) not wearing armour or B) is wearing armour and you want them alive.

Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

Its also worth noting that the random hit location table is not a linear progression. The curve has a significant hump in the middle (Look, I failed my statistics roll ATM), making torso, arm and leg hits the most common results, which has the previously mentioned downside of capped damage capacity.

For the most part I see the torso as a default but you can allways take a random hit as just being coverage for those groups who do not want the added complexity of hit locations and random rolls.

Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

Not so much.

If they're not significantly better protected on the torso than the limbs, shooting the torso specifically may help because:
-Pi+, Pi++, and Imp don't get to benefit from their wounding factors against limbs.
-Every torso hit is a potential vitals hit (especially good for small piercing).
-The torso has a higher blow-through threshold, if you're using blow-through on the torso at all. So it's better for chewing away HP with, say, a rifle.

And the vitals thing especially points out why the torso is not the go-to aimpoint for non-lethal takedowns.

Re: Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues
 

Could I get a referrence on the possiblity of any torso hit being a potential vitals hit. I thought that the vitals could only be specifically targeted by those using an appropreate attack form.