Tactical Shooting Positions

[aesir23]

Originally Posted by Ubiquitous

Would 'throw my sword up and catch it on my back-sheathe' be a Shtick?.

I'd require two perks.

Originally Posted by TheMorten

Quick-sheathe allows sheathing your weapon as a ready action (instead of using a few seconds bothering with the scabbard or holster).

Flicking the blood off your blade is also a perk that grants an intimidation check if the GM allows it.

Basically these two, with the wording changed on the intimidation Schtick.

[panton41]

Originally Posted by Ragitsu

How about this shooting position?

I'd give it -1 to Malf and require the rolls if you don't otherwise. Pistols are designed to be fired upright, so holding it sideways means it can't eject right and a jam is more likely.

Honestly, I'd argue if you have the Guns skill you know better than to hold it like that. I severely doubt people who shoot like that actually have the Guns skill.

[SCHIFTY]

[QUOTE=It discourages the Weaver position, so there's that, but a -2 defensively is a good trade-off for the +1 offensively.
[/QUOTE]

What's the Weaver position?

[lexington]

Originally Posted by SCHIFTY

What's the Weaver position?

This:http://www.officer.com/article/photo...web-weaver.jpg

In GURPS terms this is how a character holding a handgun is "braced".

[Vagrant]

I seem to remember seeing somewhere that a side-profile stance for firing is not recomended if the firer is wearing body armour. This stance exposes the weakest part of the armour to incoming shots so it is better to present the front of the body to be hit where the armour has its full strength. M L Fackler also did a report into bullet penetration and suggested having the arms up in front of the face gives considerable protection. I think skin works out at the equivalent to four inches of flesh for energy needed to penetrate.

[Kromm]

GURPS gives no penalty to hit a standing man who lacks cover, however he turns his body. This whole "-2 to hit people in side profile" thing isn't a rule – it's a misremembering. If you're a fencer, this stance has the advantage of working well with footing that allows a swifter retreat; that's in part why you get +3 and not the usual +1 to Parry when you retreat. However, you cannot parry or retreat from bullets, so this is quite irrelevant to shooters (and even for fencers, it gives a defense bonus, not a penalty to enemy attacks). Thus, you gain no defensive advantage whatsoever by standing side-on and sticking your gun hand out. All you do is give enemy bullets a shorter path to your vitals (under the armpit, I'd allow vitals shots at just -1) and deprive yourself of a stable shooting stance. Oh, and make yourself easier to disarm.

Which points up that shooting stances aren't all equivalent and a matter of preference. Like calisthenics, ergonomics, and lots of other fields involving how the body is placed and moved, there's a technology here. It improves with study, practical experience, and the amount of data gathered. Modern, stabilized shooting stances are simply better than older ones, in much the same way that the crunch is a better exercise than the traditional sit-up, or modern sprinters have better technique than historical ones. The absence of gizmos doesn't make these things "timeless"; modern people really do have the advantage of more data and experience to refine seemingly basic things like how to stand, sit, walk, lift, and hold tools. It wasn't just nutrition that gave low-tech people bad spines and joints.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Which points up that shooting stances aren't all equivalent and a matter of preference. Like calisthenics, ergonomics, and lots of other fields involving how the body is placed and moved, there's a technology here. It improves with study, practical experience, and the amount of data gathered. Modern, stabilized shooting stances are simply better than older ones, ...

And, we cry hysterically, why weren't they discovered and used more frequently back when battle was a daily yadda yadda?

Because the OFF hand was holding the single shot (or six to eight shot) black powder pistol, while the GOOD hand was holding a sword. Or one hand was a sword or gun, the other the reins of a horse.

The one-handed shooting stance was traditional, but an outgrowth of when pistols especially were of very limited value.

[SuedodeuS]

Originally Posted by Ubiquitous

Maybe he holds both hands upside down.

He generally holds them in odd gun-fu poses (and even has his own style of gun-fu), to include an inverted version of "gangsta style." It's all crazy-stylish, but also pretty much useless. Death the Kidd would have a Perk to be able to effectively shoot like that, but given his guns are kind of like Innate Attacks with Granted by Familiar (he has two Allies that transform into the guns for him to use), that's pretty much moot anyway.

For the sideways "gangsta" stance, you're probably talking no Aim action, possibly a skill penalty, and maybe a circumstance bonus to skills making use of street cred. I probably wouldn't give an Intimidation bonus, except for maybe the "this guy's a gang member/a thug/stupid enough to actually shoot" bonus, if applicable.

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

And, we cry hysterically, why weren't they discovered and used more frequently back when battle was a daily yadda yadda?

Because the OFF hand was holding the single shot (or six to eight shot) black powder pistol, while the GOOD hand was holding a sword. Or one hand was a sword or gun, the other the reins of a horse.

The one-handed shooting stance was traditional, but an outgrowth of when pistols especially were of very limited value.

Interesting. I had assumed it was related to the fact that the other, slightly-older method of dueling (with rapiers/smallswords/etc) made use of that stance.

[Ragitsu]

Is there a stance unique to left-handed shooters?

[Ubiquitous]

Originally Posted by Kromm

...or modern sprinters have better technique than historical ones.

For the sake of argument I'll point out; I've never heard of a modern sprinter racing horses like Jessie Owens did.

EDIT: It WAS Jessie Owens I meant, right?

DOUBLE EDIT: Whoa Kromm, hold up.

Originally Posted by Kromm

All you do is give enemy bullets a shorter path to your vitals (under the armpit, I'd allow vitals shots at just -1) and deprive yourself of a stable shooting stance. Oh, and make yourself easier to disarm.

'Vitals at -1' was what caught me on this; I just checked myself in the mirror, and I'm about half as big in profile. Now, Vitals size (gauging from, ahem, groin) gives a -3 to hit...why are my vitals easier to hit side-on if they don't actually change size, especially since my center-mass is no longer existent (since I'm no longer 'wide', just tall, assuming center-mass is my chest still and doesn't change definition when I turn).

I sense something like the SM-rule ('use the longest dimension') as what's not giving a penalty to hit a sideways person (since they don't get shorter) but you're saying that shooting someone in profile is just as easy as shooting someone straight-on?