Thanks for the answers, everyone!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm
As a quick, dirty, one-roll rule, I'd be fine with letting the -10 for shooting "blind" at someone completely behind cover stack with bonuses for aiming, bracing, etc.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMason
I think the size of the cover needs to be factored in somehow. Curling into a ball and hiding in a large box should be -10 to hit.
Perhaps the area of negative space (that which isn't occupied by the target) ramps up the penalty from -0 (cutout matching the target's silhouette) to -10 (more negative space than occupied space).
|
Great! Kromm's rule is very easy to handle, and it provides good playability. I also believe that taking obstacle's size into account is a good addition to a quick, dirty rule (thus making it less dirty). Indeed, shooting a human fully hidden behind a trash can shouldn't be as difficult as shooting a human fully hidden behind whole section of the opaque fence or wall. Combining these two approaches looks very good for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk
Yeah, if someone is totally behind cover, I think it's probably best mechanically modeled as "shooting at the bit of cover you think they're behind."
Then maybe a 9 or less roll (kind of like shooting through someone's hex) plus a random hit location roll, if you're using them?
If the rules say you can't get an aiming bonus because someone's behind the corner of the wall a hundred yards away, and thus can't even hit the wall, that's obviously dumb. So choose a different way to look at it, IMO.
|
That's an unexpected alternative, but I really really like it. Sure, shooting the obstacle is a matter of skill (with all appropriate modifiers, including Aim, but not -6 or -10 for shooting hidden target, since obstacle isn't hidden), but hitting the foe is a matter of chance. I would also modify that 9 skill appropriate to obstacle's size, foe's size, foe's posture and to number of bullets which hit the obstacle during single attack.