Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-11-2021, 07:33 AM   #1
Acala
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Default Dodging ranged attack while in cover?

Simple question. During ranged combat, if one combatant is in cover, his attacker is forced to target the hit locations that are outside of cover. Okay.

But if his attacker hits anyway, does the combatant get a chance to dodge? Like getting his whole body behind the cover at the right time? Or dodging ranged attacks is only avaiable if you are moving around?
Acala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2021, 07:41 AM   #2
Anaraxes
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Default Re: Dodging ranged attack while in cover?

By RAW, cover does not remove your ability to Dodge, so you'd still get that Active Defense if it were otherwise allowed.

It's possible to shift behind a merlon, duck under the top of the wall, move a little around your tree, without changing stance or changing hex.

I can see an argument that trying to stay behind cover limits your ability to move. There is a theory that characters get Dodges because they're always moving around in combat. That usually surfaces when someone complains about dodging bullets. But that doesn't have to mean sprinting in random S-curves. You're just not considered to be standing frozen in place simply because it's not your turn.
Anaraxes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2021, 07:59 AM   #3
Acala
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Default Re: Dodging ranged attack while in cover?

Thanks for the clarification. I'm asking this because i plan to run a very simplified and fast game for new players, so do not want to use location hits. With that in mind, if i use the cover rules, im forced to do so. I was hoping to skip them by allowing dodge behind cover. The problem is that if i skip using the hit location rules, then the only difference from using cover or running around shooting would be the bulk penalties, cover would be, for the most part, only cosmetic, not to mention the possibility for unbalancing the game by altering these rules.

So basically i would be giving the shooters a bonus to hit by ignoring hit penalties and would be making cover only flavor.
Acala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2021, 08:43 AM   #4
Stormcrow
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ronkonkoma, NY
Default Re: Dodging ranged attack while in cover?

If you want cover to be useful without using hit locations, you can use task difficulty modifiers (p. B345) to estimate the protection that cover grants you. For instance, being half-covered might make an average shot into an "unfavorable" one (-1): "tasks that would challenge a novice adventurer, but not an old hand." Shooting over your cover and only exposing your head and hand might be "very unfavorable" (-3): "tasks that would challenge a professional." If only your big toe is exposed, that might be "hard" (-5): "tasks so challenging that even an expert will look for alternatives."

If you get hit despite being behind cover, you take the full damage as if you were hit in the torso. If players complain, saying it's not realistic that they should take full damage when they were hit in the big toe, you can smile and reply, "Would you like to start using hit locations now?"
Stormcrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2021, 09:15 AM   #5
Anaraxes
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Default Re: Dodging ranged attack while in cover?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormcrow View Post
you can use task difficulty modifiers
As another point of calibration, you might take the text in the first bullet on B408 literally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by B408
If the location is only half exposed, you have an extra -2 to hit
Certainly, that was written pre-supposing hit locations. But if you take "the location" to mean "the target", because it only one big location when we're not using the hit location rules, then "half cover" is a -2 penalty. Head, shoulder, and one hand might be half the upper body. So, half cover for the half that's exposed would be -2 for the upper half, and -2 to get the uncovered half of that half, for -4.

If you look at the Size/Speed/Range table, you'll see that halving the size of a target turns into a -2 to hit. So it all fits.

In other words, numbers in the ballpark that Stormcrow is suggesting. Just a way to feel more confident about estimating them.
Anaraxes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2021, 09:39 AM   #6
Stormcrow
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ronkonkoma, NY
Default Re: Dodging ranged attack while in cover?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaraxes View Post
Certainly, that was written pre-supposing hit locations. But if you take "the location" to mean "the target", because it only one big location when we're not using the hit location rules, then "half cover" is a -2 penalty.
It doesn't scale this way. If only half your face is exposed, the penalty to hit is -7 instead of -5: a 40% increased penalty. If only half your right arm is exposed, your penalty is -4 instead of -2: a 100% increased penalty. I wouldn't go retro-engineering exact penalties based on that.
Stormcrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2021, 09:59 AM   #7
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: Dodging ranged attack while in cover?

for more realism about "how do I even know the bullet's on a path to hit my exposed hand", Pyramid 3/57 gunplay has it under Cole's "Dodge This" article a pg 29 "Incoming!" rule for perceiving a projectile.

If we assume that basic roll constitutes "I know this is going to hit my general area" (ie torso/chest at -0) then maybe to know something more specific like "I know exactly where the bullet will hit" the MoS on this roll should offset whatever the penalty is to hit that location?

Pg 30's "Tactical Dodge Redux" also has this generic "I can declare dodges on my own turn and it automatically applies against all attackers representing general erratic movement" option but it's a little powerful since you're basically getting free defenses against surprise attacks with no obvious penalty.

I'd prefer to merge that somehow with his Move and Attack (Evasive) idea of introducing penalties to hit, but maybe just make it a broader "you're -2 to DX per each -1 to hit" and apply that as a combat option to any maneuver instead of making a new one.

The cap to move can just naturally flow from how Basic Move derives from DX, -1 per -4 to DX means -1 per -2 to hit.

I'm thinking maybe that's how dodging could work too, since dodging takes -1 per -4 to DX, unlike the -2 per -1 that parrying/blocking does.

If we're going to give dodging the same penalizing from DX that parrying/blocking gets then maybe it should be shifted to purely DX-based (not half HT based) to match with that?
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2021, 12:28 PM   #8
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Dodging ranged attack while in cover?

I'll throw out that 'unbalancing' the game isn't so much a thing to worry about. The game isn't attached to a singular point of balance. "Balance" comes more from (a) the rules being the same across characters and (b) the GM's choices of setting the scene.

For instance, not using hit locations (which is definitely an approved sort of thing to do) means that there's a lot less motivation for characters to wear helmets. You might see lighter and cheaper armor selections because there's no need for peripheral protection. Imbalanced? Only if you think that's a problem or only some of the players are aware of it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormcrow View Post
It doesn't scale this way. If only half your face is exposed, the penalty to hit is -7 instead of -5: a 40% increased penalty. If only half your right arm is exposed, your penalty is -4 instead of -2: a 100% increased penalty. I wouldn't go retro-engineering exact penalties based on that.
Penalties combine additively, not multiplicatively, as you demonstrate, so not scaling consistently by multiplicative metrics is fully expected and not an indication of a problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
for more realism about "how do I even know the bullet's on a path to hit my exposed hand", Pyramid 3/57 gunplay has it under Cole's "Dodge This" article a pg 29 "Incoming!" rule for perceiving a projectile.

....
That seems the opposite of helpful for the OP.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident.
Ulzgoroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2021, 03:35 PM   #9
Anaraxes
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Default Re: Dodging ranged attack while in cover?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormcrow View Post
It doesn't scale this way. If only half your face is exposed, the penalty to hit is -7 instead of -5.
Exactly -- an extra -2 for half the target. That's what I wrote earlier. I didn't say "halve the penalty" or "double the penalty". I said "a target half the size is -2", relative to the whole target (whatever SM and modifier that might be). Two steps on the SSR is -2, and also a factor of 2 in the target SM (plus or minus the fudging to keep the numbers tidy).

Last edited by Anaraxes; 05-11-2021 at 03:39 PM.
Anaraxes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2021, 05:17 PM   #10
Stormcrow
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ronkonkoma, NY
Default Re: Dodging ranged attack while in cover?

You guys aren't following me. I'm not saying you measure these modifiers multiplicatively; I'm saying you can't say "half a face is -2 in the hit location system, so half a whole body is -2 without a hit location system." You're not meant to extrapolate an entire targeting subsystem from a single special case.
Stormcrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.