Questions about hitboxes, impaling weapons, rigid armor, and hit chances

[Kalzazz]

I tend to give skill 10-14 for ordinary replacement level guys, actual snipers are not ordinary replacement guys

Named Heroes the skies the limit

Some ordinary soldier? Skill 10-14

Some member of Alexander's Companions? US Marine Sniper? More then that

Carlos Hathcock? Sky high

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by simply Nathan

I disagree with this entire paragraph. PCs tend to have inflatedly high skill levels, yes, because players hate to miss attacks. Skill 12 is where I'd peg professional snipers and weapons at DX level (10) as typical for most soldiers who can take one of Telegraphic or All-Out Attack to boost their accuracy while people relying on default alone need both and elite warriors (as most combat PCs tend to be) can do away with both.

Tactical Shooting pretty well lays down that 12 is not an appropriate skill level for professional snipers.

If you meant professional soldiers, (whose main job skill is actually Soldier) weapon skill at 12 would be pretty good and skill 10 could be passable, though at that level trying to hit someone may have downright slapstick results since somebody with no defensive advantages can still ensure that the attacker fails to make contact more than half the time. (And if they use All Out Attack to try to reduce that, they'll most likely lose the fight instantly even to a skill-10 opponent. All Out Attack in melee combat does not work as a staple move.)

I do agree with the OP that skill 14 is rather high for someone who isn't really that invested in martial training. (But PCs will be like that fairly often if allowed.)

Originally Posted by GodBeastX

This assumes you are mixing in Martial Arts rules, which I never assume when people are posting. Yes, if you take the possible vital hit then Torso isn't bad, but otherwise it requires you to do massive damage in order to effectively end combat. I say End COmbat because even killing someone may not be the goal of a fight. I also said "Almost" always, not "Always". I am usually careful about making absolute statements, because things like reducing effective skill to low to be useful and other factors tie into choosing a location too.

However, if you're trying to make someone ineffective in combat, Torso is not often the best place to hit.

I think that 'you're using an impaling weapon', especially in this thread, is a very important exception to that.

[simply Nathan]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

If that's your only reason to aim for the torso, you should take a random location instead. It doesn't cost you any skill and gives you a chance of hitting somewhere else. This may often be a good choice for a cutting or crushing attack.

For me it's because I never use Hit Locations at all so every hit is always a torso hit.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by simply Nathan

For me it's because I never use Hit Locations at all so every hit is always a torso hit.

This might be a reason why you see 12 as a professional combat number.

In melee my players are aiming for vitals? That 12 becomes a 9...and that is no good. My players in want to use a deceptive attack? That 12 is not great.

And of course if you are using ranged weapons, those range penalties take that 12 down to a 7 really fast...and that is not so good.

I find my players like to succeed more than half the time.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by trooper6

Dear OP, here is where you will see two very different schools of GURPS. simply Nathan is representing the Cult of Stat Normalization that tends to want characters to have low skills and low attributes because they see that as realistic. GodBeastX is representing the other school...which I don't think has a name...which finds higher skills and attributes realistic.

You get to choose which school your join.

Quite a lot of the difference is that the Cult member tend to think people have low skills but get generous bonuses for routine tasks. Of course life and death situations are never routine tasks which tends to result in bad times once the PCs start adventuring (in my experience).

I remember reading this somewhere once (though I don't recall where)...and this is where I fall: 12 for starting professional level skills, 14 for starting professional level skills where life and death is concerned (combatants, surgeons, pilots, etc).

But for me 14 is Spear is a good starting professional level.

Well speaking as a paid up member of the cult I've never really known stat normalisation to refer much to skills. I'm certainly a "stat normaliser" but I find the only issues are with high stats not high skill. (there are plenty of ways to counter high skill IME, especially in combat)

FWIW my range would be:

Spear Skill 10 = hastily fielded militia
Spear Skill 12 = Regular seasonal or not very well trained core of troops.
Spear Skill 14 = Experienced or 'professional' level troops
Spear skill 16+ = getting into elite famous troops.



A couple point though. Historically speaking training wasn't as regular regime a lot of the time. High skill wasn't the be all and end all of weapon training, because there was more to being an effective combatant on historical battlefields than raw skill or accuracy.

For example the shield wall perk at 1 pt it worth more than way more points spent on spear skill in an army that relies on a strong shield wall.


Similarly the ability to reliably hit a torso at 100 yards with a musket, is way less important than the ability to load and fire quickly when you shooting at blocks of men not individuals.

I.e even of you give all you spear men Skill 12 in your front line that's likely not the only factor to rate them by.

[DouglasCole]

Check out the first two posts here for some examples of both what melee skills "mean" and what you can do with lots of skill.

http://gamingballistic.blogspot.com/...e-academy.html