Hit Location: Soles of the Feet

[Alden Loveshade]

I appreciate all the responses so far--thanks! The hit locations in the Basic Set (p. 398) generally don't specify direction except for eyes and face. Most could apply whether attacking from in front or behind (and yes, I know you could technically target someone's eyes or face from behind, but it would likely be at a minus).

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Alden Loveshade

I appreciate all the responses so far--thanks! The hit locations in the Basic Set (p. 398) generally don't specify direction except for eyes and face. Most could apply whether attacking from in front or behind (and yes, I know you could technically target someone's eyes or face from behind, but it would likely be at a minus).

Martial Arts doesn't give any rules that I'm aware of for targeting the Eyes from behind, but the Face is indeed penalized, at -7 total (while the Skull is at only -5). This isn't for some sort of wrap-around attack, however - rather, a "face" hit from behind is a hit below the base of the skull but above the neck. A wrap-around attack option would make a degree of sense, but I'm not certain what it would be, although I'd lean toward a further -2 (which would actually put a wraparound attack to the front of the Face from behind at the same penalty as an attack to the back of the Face from behind, but the former would allow for a 1/6 chance of an Eye hit).

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Martial Arts doesn't give any rules that I'm aware of for targeting the Eyes from behind, but the Face is indeed penalized, at -7 total (while the Skull is at only -5). This isn't for some sort of wrap-around attack, however - rather, a "face" hit from behind is a hit below the base of the skull but above the neck. A wrap-around attack option would make a degree of sense, but I'm not certain what it would be, although I'd lean toward a further -2 (which would actually put a wraparound attack to the front of the Face from behind at the same penalty as an attack to the back of the Face from behind, but the former would allow for a 1/6 chance of an Eye hit).

That's a good point for melee attacks, especially swung attacks. For ranged attacks I'd just say it's impossible without Ricochet or something.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

That's a good point for melee attacks, especially swung attacks. For ranged attacks I'd just say it's impossible without Ricochet or something.

In some ways, different attack types (swing vs thrust, ranged vs melee, etc) should have different hit location penalties, but that would be a massive bag of worms (and something much more fit for a new thread). But, yes, ranged attacks would typically lack the option of doing a wrap-around attack (I'd probably let someone using a boomerang or similar with Throwing Art pull it off at the same -2 as a melee attack, however).

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by Varyon

In some ways, different attack types (swing vs thrust, ranged vs melee, etc) should have different hit location penalties, but that would be a massive bag of worms (and something much more fit for a new thread). But, yes, ranged attacks would typically lack the option of doing a wrap-around attack (I'd probably let someone using a boomerang or similar with Throwing Art pull it off at the same -2 as a melee attack, however).

For that I'd likely just assess things in the moment as a GM. For instance, if someone had "Swung Pick at Eye" as a technique, I might just let them use it from behind at no extra penalty because they are trained to strike there. Stabbing with a sword might get a -2 for awkward angle. I feel like Flails can ignore facing due to how they are constructed or maybe require a perk.

[Plane]

One interesting thing is how 'long weapons in close combat' applies a -4 to skill for "wrap shots". That could be interesting to apply even with close-range weapons being used in this regard.

It could make more sense as a generic rule, I think the 5/7 v 7/5 relationship between face/skull is just because of what has more exposure in that unique layout, rather than a generic "wraparound" concept.

Aside from -4 for "wrap shots" there should probably also be some kind of penalty for striking at a location you can't directly see. Not necessarily the 'Wild Swing' penalty for striking at someone behind you though: you can still see the target after all, just the wrong SIDE of it, so you roughly know where it is in space to estimate where eyes ought to be better.

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by Plane

One interesting thing is how 'long weapons in close combat' applies a -4 to skill for "wrap shots". That could be interesting to apply even with close-range weapons being used in this regard.

It could make more sense as a generic rule, I think the 5/7 v 7/5 relationship between face/skull is just because of what has more exposure in that unique layout, rather than a generic "wraparound" concept.

Aside from -4 for "wrap shots" there should probably also be some kind of penalty for striking at a location you can't directly see. Not necessarily the 'Wild Swing' penalty for striking at someone behind you though: you can still see the target after all, just the wrong SIDE of it, so you roughly know where it is in space to estimate where eyes ought to be better.

I feel like -4 could cover all the bases there. It's simple and explains both the awkwardness of the weird direction and not fully seeing your exact target. It also seems like a technique that could be bought, maybe up to -2 like the close combat one. And then certain weapons could get less of a penalty. Flails could have base -2 and get fully bought off because of the way a flail already swings around.

Actually, this applies well to the soles of the feet. They'll likely never be at a good angle, so you'd want some sort of 'wrap shot'. The -4 for feet with -4 for this makes the -8 I originally came up with well.

[Alden Loveshade]

Originally Posted by Varyon

In some ways, different attack types (swing vs thrust, ranged vs melee, etc) should have different hit location penalties, but that would be a massive bag of worms (and something much more fit for a new thread)

I realized when I asked the original question that it was getting into small details. Frankly I usually avoid that because it can take a very long time to run combat in a game that way. I remember one time I sparked a discussion involving two of the top combat LARPers in California about handling a combat issue in game, and they completely disagreed with each other.

I was hoping there might be a reference to a minus for the soles of the feet in GURPS, but so far no one here has found one. I do appreciate everyone's posts, though!

[Plane]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

Actually, this applies well to the soles of the feet. They'll likely never be at a good angle, so you'd want some sort of 'wrap shot'. The -4 for feet with -4 for this makes the -8 I originally came up with well.

It depends a lot on context. A standard thrust kick will expose the soles (they're the point of impact) but the 'Kicking Attack' technique also covers other varieties of kicks which don't keep it prominently displayed, like doing a snap kick, roundhouse kick, instep kick, kick w/ top of foot, kick w/ shin, etc.

Given how Low-Tech has subdivided the usual hit locations for armor, it'd be interesting for those subdivisions to be reflected in kicking variants too. Important to know for points of contact and the like.

IE if all you have is sandals, you're going to want to kick a porcupine with the sole (bottom has some DR) instead of the top/instep of your foot where there's no DR to protect against the quills.

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by Plane

It depends a lot on context. A standard thrust kick will expose the soles (they're the point of impact) but the 'Kicking Attack' technique also covers other varieties of kicks which don't keep it prominently displayed, like doing a snap kick, roundhouse kick, instep kick, kick w/ top of foot, kick w/ shin, etc.

I did consider that. Without a Wait or Aggressive Parry, even a kick like that isn't going to keep the sole in a good position to hit since there is a lot of movement going on; Alice can standard kick Benny in the chest, roll to keep her balance, then step to the side all at once. By the time it is Benny's turn, she technically would have her foot on the ground and in world that step could be described as her landing the kick.

But with a Wait, the attack could be the trigger. Benny decides to stab her foot before she lands and has to roll DX which would make sense to be affected by shock penalties. There the penalty would be gone and it sole could likely be hit at the regular -4. Poor Alice.

Your point about sandals is important, though; Hurting Yourself can be counteracted by your own DR. Having DR1 (Soles Only) would make you far more willing to kick with the bottom of your foot. Since that would likely be the most beneficial use of that DR, it being a perk seems perfectly fine to me since you effectively bought a 'realistic' Rules Exemption against Hurting Yourself (you'd need to do 10+ damage against DR2+ for it to not apply which is ST17 + Karate bonus max damage).