Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues

[Diomedes]

Originally Posted by Beowulfenator

BTW, how do limbs get hacked off? Let's say a 10HP character gets a 8HP cutting wound in the leg. Is that leg cut off or just crippled?

To sever a limb you need to inflict double the damage necessary to cripple it (Note that injury beyond that needed to cripple is lost). So your 10HP character would have a crippled leg, and would have lost 6 HP. A blow of at least 12 points of damage would be necessary to cut the leg off, but the victim would still only lost 6 HP.

[Beowulfenator]

Originally Posted by Sabaron

I'm aware this thread has been off topic for a while, but let me add in an on-topic concern I have yet to see addressed: shields.

Ordinarily a shield wielder gets an extra measure of protection for her shield arm. Instead of -2 to hit it is -4, and the hand is -8 instead of -4. The random hit rolls account for this in no way at all by my reading. That makes them somewhat less fair, yes? How should this be addressed?

Very interesting! I've never thought of this myself, though. I wonder what others have to say about this.

[Beowulfenator]

Originally Posted by Diomedes

To sever a limb you need to inflict double the damage necessary to cripple it

Do you recall where that is in the rules?

[Diomedes]

Originally Posted by Beowulfenator

Do you recall where that is in the rules?

Page B421. You might also check out the box on the previous page, on accumulated wounds.

[PK]

Originally Posted by Sabaron

I'm aware this thread has been off topic for a while, but let me add in an on-topic concern I have yet to see addressed: shields.

Ordinarily a shield wielder gets an extra measure of protection for her shield arm. Instead of -2 to hit it is -4, and the hand is -8 instead of -4. The random hit rolls account for this in no way at all by my reading. That makes them somewhat less fair, yes? How should this be addressed?

The simplest way would be to ignore the "Right" or "Left" labels on the table for the arms. Then, when hit in the arm or hand, roll 1d:

1-2: The shield arm/hand is hit
3-6: The other arm/hand is hit

That translates "twice as hard to hit" over to a 1d roll, and should be relatively easy to use in play.

[OldSam]

Just to get it straight (not quite sure about it, yet):

First, it seems there is consensus, that an uncalled "default attack" is against the torso...
But is it right, that striking and/or shooting at a random hit location is by RAW also just a "normal target option" with no penalty at all?
And how many of you play it that way? (so far, normally I use that only for "wild strikes" or something like that)

What do you think of giving a generic penalty of -1 (?) to random attacks?
(mainly to avoid giving away free headshots etc. "for nothing" and also to represent a slightly higher chance of missing, due to the unprecise, chaotic nature of the attack)

Especially when the fighters aren't wearing any armor, I don't like the idea of players just being lucky and regularly hitting at critical locations for free. Also, the other way around, I think it would be very unpleasant for the players if all mooks would constantly attack them like that.

[zorg]

Originally Posted by OldSam

First, it seems there is consensus, that an uncalled "default attack" is against the torso...
But is it right, that striking and/or shooting at a random hit location is by RAW also just a "normal target option" with no penalty at all?
And how many of you play it that way? (so far, normally I use that only for "wild strikes" or something like that)

We don't use random hit locations, for no reason beyond that it requires added dice rolling, and a chart to look things up in.

[MrKay]

I usually use random hit locations for attacks that can reasonably be said to be 'unaimed'; rapid fire gunshots (particularly by untrained shooters), covering fire, flying shrapnel, ricochets, etc. In some cases I use it when grappled fighters are trying to strike eachother, as a random way of determining what parts of the enemy's body the grappled man can reach - just to make combat a bit more interesting.

[Bruno]

I don't see a point in penalizing an attack further for the use of random hit locations. With different damage types interacting with different DRs and wounding in different ways over each hit location, there is significant strategic value in actually calling your hit location. Random hit location may get you a high value target by accident, but generally it's going to get you a sub-optimal combination for the targets DR and your damage type, unless you're using a crushing weapon - at which point the throat and skull are prime (but hard to hit randomly) and everything else basically sucks equally :D

[Phoenix_Dragon]

Originally Posted by OldSam

What do you think of giving a generic penalty of -1 (?) to random attacks?
(mainly to avoid giving away free headshots etc. "for nothing" and also to represent a slightly higher chance of missing, due to the unprecise, chaotic nature of the attack)

Less "unprecise, chaotic," more "whatever presents itself," I would think.