Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues

[BlackLiger]

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.

[zylosan]

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.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by BlackLiger

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.

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.

[zylosan]

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.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by zylosan

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.

Martial Arts realistic injury rules.

Only for damage types that can hit vitals, of course.

[Kromm]

You'll just about always want to aim for the torso (or neck or head) when using imp, pi+, or pi++ attacks, because those damage types don't get their wounding multipliers vs. limbs or extremities . . . which are very common results when attacking random hit locations. The potential bonus of a "free" vitals hit in such situations is also nice (Martial Arts, p. 137).

At low TLs, especially, also note that good armor for head, limbs, and extremities is cheap. Plenty of fighters who can only afford light torso armor will have a steel helmet and gauntlets. This is actually what earned random hit locations extra hate in my former fantasy campaign . . . after the fifth or six bad guy was hit in the bronze greave instead of his leather cuirass, people quit taking uncalled shots.

And of course hits on limbs and extremities can be weak for other reasons. For example, if you have a one-shot glove pistol and are taking on some guard who has a proper pistol, it can really suck when you disable his left arm and he just shoots you with the gun in his right hand. In that situation, you'd really prefer to hit the center of mass! Limb hits aren't stops, and down isn't the same as out. A truly good warrior knocked to the ground with a leg hit can still make life living hell for you, especially if he has a gun or a long melee weapon, like a spear. One hit in the hand or arm isn't a whole lot less dangerous to you if he has a one-handed weapon in the other hand or arm . . . especially if that weapon is a .50AE pistol or a magic sword or a freakin' light saber.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Finally, limb hits aren't stops. Down isn't the same as out. A truly good warrior knocked to the ground with a leg hit can still make life living hell for you, especially if he has a gun or a long melee weapon, like a spear. One hit in the hand or arm isn't a whole lot less dangerous to you if he has a one-handed weapon in the other hand or arm . . . especially if that weapon is a .50AE pistol or a magic sword.

With the caveat that anyone who continues to fight you after you cut off his arm or leg is either a legendary hero, shocking fanatic or some sort of magical construct/undead/monster.

Not that you may not face some (or all) of these in a fantasy campaign. Just that in a realistic campaign, the vast majority of people who have limbs hacked off are quite certainly not active combatants any more.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Just that in a realistic campaign, the vast majority of people who have limbs hacked off are quite certainly not active combatants any more.

"In an excessively gritty campaign," you mean. Countless war stories tell of people with missing body parts killing enemies now and worrying about themselves later. It's fairly realistic to fight for your life when the alternative is laying down and being killed. The vast majority of RPG combats are "to the complete demise of the other side." This may or may not be realistic in itself, but inasmuch as it does sometimes occur in real life, people really do fight on despite extreme injury.

[rosignol]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Not that you may not face some (or all) of these in a fantasy campaign. Just that in a realistic campaign, the vast majority of people who have limbs hacked off are quite certainly not active combatants any more.

That really depends on what the person who lost the limb expects the adversaries to do if they win the fight. If it's "bandage my wounds and put me in an internment camp until the political leadership negotiates a peace treaty", yeah, falling down and trying to improvise some personal first aid is both rational and realistic.

If you're expecting them to kill you (either immediately, or as part of the victory celebration), you fight until you pass out and hope the priests were right about Valhalla. Especially if you're fighting something that's likely to eat you.