Targeting specific locations, difficulty and fairness issues

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Kromm

random hits are on the whole a wash . . . they hinder the attacker as often as they help him, and are in no way a uniformly "free" advantage.

Tactically speaking, in a lethal fight, cutting damage is almost always useful regardless of location (assuming relatively similar DR on all locations). Given a choice between targeting the torso, and targeting randomly with a decent chance of inflicting a fight-ending blow (crippling blows are also major wounds, for instance) I find that with a cutting weapon random location is often the best option.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Tactically speaking, in a lethal fight, cutting damage is almost always useful regardless of location (assuming relatively similar DR on all locations). Given a choice between targeting the torso, and targeting randomly with a decent chance of inflicting a fight-ending blow (crippling blows are also major wounds, for instance) I find that with a cutting weapon random location is often the best option.

Major wounds aren't all that fight-ending sometimes. But in a melee fight most forms of crippling are going to have a dramatic impact regardless.

Cutting is probably the most random-target friendly damage type.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Major wounds aren't all that fight-ending sometimes. But in a melee fight most forms of crippling are going to have a dramatic impact regardless.

My point was crippling his leg, and maybe causing a him to fail a knockdown roll is often preferable to doing less than 1/2 HP damage to the torso (since torso armor is usually better). It is certainly preferable to missing the leg. This makes random attacks with cutting weapons often a good tactical choice.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

This makes random attacks with cutting weapons often a good tactical choice.

Which is fairly consistent with real-world knife training, which can be grossly oversimplified as "If you have a good edge, slash like mad. There are no bad targets."

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Which is fairly consistent with real-world knife training, which can be grossly oversimplified as "If you have a good edge, slash like mad. There are no bad targets."

Yes, absolutely and therefore GURPS wins again (Kromm may drink a glass a of wine in the Game Designers drinking game)! Seriously though I just wanted to point out that random location is not always a poor tactical choice as you seemed to imply.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Both training and innate psychological make-up play a role.

And situation. "If I give up the beating will stop" versus "If I give up I and/or my buddies will be used for bayonet practice."

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by RyanW

And situation. "If I give up the beating will stop" versus "If I give up I and/or my buddies will be used for bayonet practice."

Spammer necro, man.