Guns in Melee

[Killer Cyborg]

I don't see where it says they are interuptable, and I just re-read the RUE ranged combat rules. yes, they take multiple actions, but it's not like spellcasting, getting hit or dodging dosn't interupt it.

It's not specifically stated, but it's pretty safe to say that a Called Shot can be interrupted.
If, for example, you spend your first attack for the Called Shot, then something kills you before your next attack, that pretty well interrupts things.
Or, if between your Calling and your actual shooting, somebody tackles you to the ground, that'd pretty well interrupt things too.
Or if your gun gets destroyed, or taken from your hand.

There is nothing specifying what exactly it takes to interrupt a Called Shot, but there was originally nothing specifying what exactly it took to interrupt a spell either; the ability to interrupt a spell was seen as a common sense function of the spell itself taking two attacks.

I'd say that anything that would reasonably prevent you from keeping your aim stead on the target should serve as an interrupt. If you have to dodge, you can't keep a bead on the target. If you have to parry with your gun-arm (or supporting arm, with a rifle), that'd do it. If you get hit by significant kinetic force. If you're "under heavy fire."

It didn't specify what it took to interupt a spell, but it did say it was possible to.

Not at first, no. Initially, it didn't even say that it took two attacks, only that you could only cast two spells per melee (which was one attack at the time, since two was the average).
They kept tweaking it, changing it, and clarifying what they meant until we got where we are today.

nothing says or hints that it's possible to interupt an aimed shot. logically some things could, such as being disarmed before the shot rings out, but dodging/getting hit dosn't necessarly throw your aim off.

It doesn't necessarily NOT throw your aim off either.
This would most likely be one of those areas where GMs are supposed to "use common sense."

[Slight001]

"why would I ever make a called shot?"

One of my characters was chasing after an X-10 Predator PA and was ordered to bring them back alive if possible, unable to out pace them I took a chance and made 3 consecutive called shots to the left wing. The hostile pilot failed his piloting roll and crashed.

The only reason I made those called shots is because I figured that the PA wouldn't have well armored wings and knew if one of them was eliminated it'd at least slow him down. My PC had experience fighting PA's often enough to know they devoted most of their armor (MDC) to their torsos with often drastically reduced armor protection on the extremities. Without that knowledge I wouldn't have wasted the actions as I could have easily doubled my damage output. It just so happens that the X-10 has rather fragile wings... less then 50 MDC if my memory serves me.

[Nekira Sudacne]

I don't see where it says they are interuptable, and I just re-read the RUE ranged combat rules. yes, they take multiple actions, but it's not like spellcasting, getting hit or dodging dosn't interupt it.

It's not specifically stated, but it's pretty safe to say that a Called Shot can be interrupted.
If, for example, you spend your first attack for the Called Shot, then something kills you before your next attack, that pretty well interrupts things.
Or, if between your Calling and your actual shooting, somebody tackles you to the ground, that'd pretty well interrupt things too.
Or if your gun gets destroyed, or taken from your hand.

There is nothing specifying what exactly it takes to interrupt a Called Shot, but there was originally nothing specifying what exactly it took to interrupt a spell either; the ability to interrupt a spell was seen as a common sense function of the spell itself taking two attacks.

I'd say that anything that would reasonably prevent you from keeping your aim stead on the target should serve as an interrupt. If you have to dodge, you can't keep a bead on the target. If you have to parry with your gun-arm (or supporting arm, with a rifle), that'd do it. If you get hit by significant kinetic force. If you're "under heavy fire."

It didn't specify what it took to interupt a spell, but it did say it was possible to.

Not at first, no. Initially, it didn't even say that it took two attacks, only that you could only cast two spells per melee (which was one attack at the time, since two was the average).
They kept tweaking it, changing it, and clarifying what they meant until we got where we are today.

nothing says or hints that it's possible to interupt an aimed shot. logically some things could, such as being disarmed before the shot rings out, but dodging/getting hit dosn't necessarly throw your aim off.

It doesn't necessarily NOT throw your aim off either.
This would most likely be one of those areas where GMs are supposed to "use common sense."

There's one problem with that, different people consider different things to be "common sense"

for example, if the book dosn't say x extended action can be interupted by taking any damage or dodging, and the mechanic being discribed is rendered nigh useless if it can be interupted by taking damage or dodging, then "common sense" says "Don't break the mechanic by having it be interuptable"

I'm not arguing that disrupting a called shot is impossible, like I said, if someone disarms your gun, then obviously you can't follow through. but there's no reason to think it's as trivial as making him dodge something either.

[Killer Cyborg]

This would most likely be one of those areas where GMs are supposed to "use common sense."

There's one problem with that, different people consider different things to be "common sense"

Welcome to the wonderful world of Palladium.

for example, if the book dosn't say x extended action can be interupted by taking any damage or dodging, and the mechanic being discribed is rendered nigh useless if it can be interupted by taking damage or dodging, then "common sense" says "Don't break the mechanic by having it be interuptable"

I'd go the other way, and say that unless the rules contradict physics and common sense, then there's no need to assume that the rules intend for you to ignore them.

I'm not arguing that disrupting a called shot is impossible, like I said, if someone disarms your gun, then obviously you can't follow through. but there's no reason to think it's as trivial as making him dodge something either.

Dodging while aiming isn't trivial.
It's not always easy to walk while keeping aim at a specific body part or the bullseye, much less duck or jump to the side.

[Nekira Sudacne]

for example, if the book dosn't say x extended action can be interupted by taking any damage or dodging, and the mechanic being discribed is rendered nigh useless if it can be interupted by taking damage or dodging, then "common sense" says "Don't break the mechanic by having it be interuptable"

I'd go the other way, and say that unless the rules contradict physics and common sense, then there's no need to assume that the rules intend for you to ignore them.

applying physics in this case breaks the rules, so common sense says don't apply physics.

I'm not arguing that disrupting a called shot is impossible, like I said, if someone disarms your gun, then obviously you can't follow through. but there's no reason to think it's as trivial as making him dodge something either.

Dodging while aiming isn't trivial.
It's not always easy to walk while keeping aim at a specific body part or the bullseye, much less duck or jump to the side.

We're looking at it from different angels. It's not "how hard it is to aim while dodging" that i'm examing, it's "how easy should it be to throw off someone's aim from a mechanical perspective"

Thus, while dodging while aiming is hard, from a game designers standpoint, I don't want throwing off characters aim to be easy. making someone dodge is easy, therefore, dodging should not throw off aim, because that makes it too easy for someone to throw off your aim.

"Physics" don't even even enter the equation in this case. Physics would make the rule unplayable, therefor we have two options
1: Apply physics and break the game
2: ignore physics and suspend disbelif
3: change the mechanic entirely.

In my games, I go with 3, but option 2 still seems the more rational choice compared to 1. one should never willingly make a rule that breaks the game, realistic or no.

[Killer Cyborg]

for example, if the book dosn't say x extended action can be interupted by taking any damage or dodging, and the mechanic being discribed is rendered nigh useless if it can be interupted by taking damage or dodging, then "common sense" says "Don't break the mechanic by having it be interuptable"

I'd go the other way, and say that unless the rules contradict physics and common sense, then there's no need to assume that the rules intend for you to ignore them.

applying physics in this case breaks the rules, so common sense says don't apply physics.

How does it break the rules?
Because the rules DON'T say that aiming/calling can be interrupted if you have to dodge?
Well, the rules DON'T say that having your gun destroyed will interrupt your aim either, nor that dying will interrupt your aim.

Dodging while aiming isn't trivial.
It's not always easy to walk while keeping aim at a specific body part or the bullseye, much less duck or jump to the side.

We're looking at it from different angels. It's not "how hard it is to aim while dodging" that i'm examing, it's "how easy should it be to throw off someone's aim from a mechanical perspective"

Thus, while dodging while aiming is hard, from a game designers standpoint, I don't want throwing off characters aim to be easy.

Why not?
It's easy enough to shoot people without aiming anyway.

making someone dodge is easy,

It is...?

therefore, dodging should not throw off aim, because that makes it too easy for someone to throw off your aim.

Basic gamesmanship is that you can't play offense and defense at the same time; that's one of the basic dilemmas of gaming combat.
If you're aiming, that's offense.
If you're dodging, that's defense.
Having to choose between the two is good gaming, not bad gaming.

"Physics" don't even even enter the equation in this case.

I disagree.

Physics would make the rule unplayable,

Again, I disagree.

[flatline]

Just to add fuel to the fire, how is shooting at the main body not a called shot?

If you think about it, there is no such thing as an uncalled shot since you're always centering your sight picture on something, be it the head, chest, arm, hand, leg, or whatever.

--flatline

[GenThunderfist]

Just to add fuel to the fire, how is shooting at the main body not a called shot?

If you think about it, there is no such thing as an uncalled shot since you're always centering your sight picture on something, be it the head, chest, arm, hand, leg, or whatever.

--flatline

Haha, I agree that *technically* you are right here, and it's a funny sentiment. However Rifts decided to call "shooting at the general area of the person" to be "shooting at the main body". Although, if you specifically want to hit their heart (like a vampire) that's more than just the "main body" and requires a called shot.

[Subjugator]

I don't see where it says they are interuptable, and I just re-read the RUE ranged combat rules. yes, they take multiple actions, but it's not like spellcasting, getting hit or dodging dosn't interupt it.

If a character is aiming, taking an action that isn't aiming requires that they have to stop aiming to do it. This is evident by the fact that the game doesn't let you take multiple actions at the same time. In short, if you can't dodge and attack at the same time, then you can't dodge and aim at the same time. By extent, if I use a body/flip throw or basically hit with anything, I interupt you. That is the precedence set in game for multi-action attacks.

Interesting assessment!
I'm going to think about that one a bit.

You can dodge, roll, and come up shooting. I'd call that dodging and shooting at the same time.

/Sub

[Killer Cyborg]

I don't see where it says they are interuptable, and I just re-read the RUE ranged combat rules. yes, they take multiple actions, but it's not like spellcasting, getting hit or dodging dosn't interupt it.

If a character is aiming, taking an action that isn't aiming requires that they have to stop aiming to do it. This is evident by the fact that the game doesn't let you take multiple actions at the same time. In short, if you can't dodge and attack at the same time, then you can't dodge and aim at the same time. By extent, if I use a body/flip throw or basically hit with anything, I interupt you. That is the precedence set in game for multi-action attacks.

Interesting assessment!
I'm going to think about that one a bit.

You can dodge, roll, and come up shooting. I'd call that dodging and shooting at the same time.

/Sub

I'd call that an undefined special ability for people with the right training (i.e., WP Sharpshooter).
Mechanically, I take it to mean that you can make a leaping dodge (one action), get back on your feet without taking an action, and attack (a second action).

[Qev]

And here I was hoping this was a thread about gun-kata in Rifts.

I'd say anything that causes the character to make a major body movement would interrupt an aimed shot (eg. dodging, getting knocked back/over, whatever), but yeah that's total house rule territory.

[kaid]

I would have to relook at some of the rules but it does not make to much sense for called shots to be interruptible because as noted it makes it almost impossible to do. Just look at melee called shots how would it even be possible to ever do a melee based called shot if they are interruptible. By its very nature if you are mixing it up in hand to hand combat you are moving and ducking and parrying but in the rules it says you can do called shots even with melee attacks. So if that is possible I don't see how they can be interruptible. It would make fighting vampires damn near impossible trying to stake them.

[Damian Magecraft]

Maybe I am just being dense...
But how does making called shots interuptable render the ability useless but making spells interuptable does not make them useless?

[flatline]

Maybe I am just being dense...
But how does making called shots interuptable render the ability useless but making spells interuptable does not make them useless?

Any spell level 1-5 only takes one action to cast, so you probably can't interrupt it.
Any spell level 1-8 can be cast in a single action via a talisman, so you probably can't interrupt it.
Also, many spells have significant non-combat uses, so for at least non-combat use, interruption is rarely an issue.

For combat spells levels 9+, I don't know. I've cast some of them before combat started, but never during unless I was somehow protected from the action (best use of Time Slip ever).

--flatline

[flatline]

Maybe I am just being dense...
But how does making called shots interuptable render the ability useless but making spells interuptable does not make them useless?

Spells level 1-5 only take 1 attack and areo only interuptible with a succesful simultaneous attack
Spells level 6-10 take 2 attacks and their usability in combat is questionable.

If you cast Time Slip via a talisman and then start casting a multi-action spell, depending on how many attacks you have, how long it takes to cast a particular spell, and any house rules your GM may have that govern Time Slip, you can potentially cast any spell with little fear of interruption.

But it might be tricky.

--flatline

[Damian Magecraft]

Maybe I am just being dense...
But how does making called shots interuptable render the ability useless but making spells interuptable does not make them useless?

Spells level 1-5 only take 1 attack and areo only interuptible with a succesful simultaneous attack
Spells level 6-10 take 2 attacks and their usability in combat is questionable.

Still not seeing the problem.
There are three levels of action cost to spells and three levels of action cost to ranged/melee attacks.
I fail to see how any multi-cost actions are useless if interuptable.
Explain/support your claim or have it dismissed as spurious whining.

[Killer Cyborg]

Maybe I am just being dense...
But how does making called shots interuptable render the ability useless but making spells interuptable does not make them useless?

Spells level 1-5 only take 1 attack and areo only interuptible with a succesful simultaneous attack
Spells level 6-10 take 2 attacks and their usability in combat is questionable.

Still not seeing the problem.
There are three levels of action cost to spells and three levels of action cost to ranged/melee attacks.
I fail to see how any multi-cost actions are useless if interuptable.
Explain/support your claim or have it dismissed as spurious whining.

All right, say I want to shoot someone in the head. I take aim, they shoot me on their turn and I get interrupted. I wasted an action, great. Try and do it again, wasted another action. Why am I not just shooting them in the main body?
Multi-action spells are actually slightly less useless than called shots.

You could have just as accurately said, "All right, say I want to cast a multi-action spell. I take start to cast, they shoot me on their turn and I get interrupted. I wasted an action, great. Try and do it again, wasted another action. Why am I not just casting a single-action spell?"

So... how are multi-action spells are actually slightly less useless than called shots?

Called Shots are a special move for special occasion, and they can be tricky to get off.
Just like certain spells.
Heck, just like certain other combat moves.
But the fact that they're difficult sometimes doesn't mean that they're useless.

[Killer Cyborg]

Some multi-action spells aren't offensive and can be cast from behind cover.

Called Shots can be made from behind cover as well.
That way, anybody shooting you has to try to make a Called Shot, so they're shooting just as slow as you are, and are less likely to interrupt you.

I'll make a more in depth post later because I'm busy right now.

Cool.

[kaid]

Maybe I am just being dense...
But how does making called shots interuptable render the ability useless but making spells interuptable does not make them useless?

Most magic spells are castable at a range. Most of the up close and personal spells either have a duration so once you fire them off they stay up for a while or they are levels 1-5 which are single melee actions and thus not interruptible.

The problem with called shots for ranged is not as big of a problem but try to put a stake into the heart of a vampire in melee if called shots are interruptible. The interuption ruling while annoying for ranged attackers ruins melee ability to do anything other than main body hits.

[Killer Cyborg]

Maybe I am just being dense...
But how does making called shots interuptable render the ability useless but making spells interuptable does not make them useless?

Most magic spells are castable at a range. Most of the up close and personal spells either have a duration so once you fire them off they stay up for a while or they are levels 1-5 which are single melee actions and thus not interruptible.

The problem with called shots for ranged is not as big of a problem but try to put a stake into the heart of a vampire in melee if called shots are interruptible. The interuption ruling while annoying for ranged attackers ruins melee ability to do anything other than main body hits.

Called Shots for staking vampires are different.
See VK1r.

[kaid]

Maybe I am just being dense...
But how does making called shots interuptable render the ability useless but making spells interuptable does not make them useless?

Most magic spells are castable at a range. Most of the up close and personal spells either have a duration so once you fire them off they stay up for a while or they are levels 1-5 which are single melee actions and thus not interruptible.

The problem with called shots for ranged is not as big of a problem but try to put a stake into the heart of a vampire in melee if called shots are interruptible. The interuption ruling while annoying for ranged attackers ruins melee ability to do anything other than main body hits.

Called Shots for staking vampires are different.
See VK1r.

It can just as easily be punching somebody in the face as opposed to staking something in the heart. Also using the same logic it would make power punches almost impossible to get off due as they would have the same problems with being interrupted. The penalty for using those things is the extra attack burned off throwing on more penalties on top of it seems silly. Frankly I would have no problem even not letting higher level magics being interrupted but at least they are stated specifically as being interruptible.

Honestly my preference if it is ever officially clarified is to make the penalty simply be the extra attack usage for anything requiring multiple attacks. Given how rifts combat works using two or three actions to do something is a pretty huge penalty in and of itself and really does not need extra stuff on top of it.

[Killer Cyborg]

Also using the same logic it would make power punches almost impossible to get off due as they would have the same problems with being interrupted.

Pretty much.
But they're generally useless in any case.
Also, kind of nonsensical.

[GenThunderfist]

Also using the same logic it would make power punches almost impossible to get off due as they would have the same problems with being interrupted.

That's why I don't do power attacks, high level magic attacks, called shots, aimed shots, or aimed called shots.

The logical precedence set by Palladium Books is that Mages take 2 actions to cast high level spells because they have to focus and make sure to do all somatic components and channel their power etc. etc. It makes sense in a general capacity.
These can be interrupted. It breaks your concentration, you miss a hand gesture, you stumble over a word, whatever you want to call it, you waste a turn and nothing happens.

This whole concept is easily extrapolated into all 2 or more actioned abilities. If a magic user's concentration can be broken, a man taking aim can be knocked off of his aim, or a brawler could have to dodge a grenade making him lose his built up power for his final attack (a power punch in mechanics). It makes no sense for a magic user to have one set of rules dictating what happens when they take multiple actions to accomplish a single task, and another dictating the effects differently for other people.

I mean, I admit. Palladium does have a way about making neigh arbitrary rulings that don't seem to follow any sort of logical progression, so maybe magic users are just whimps while everyone else is able to maintain whatever they used up their action for no matter what.

So, as long as the rules stay as clear as dirt on the subject of how multiple actions are effected if you aren't a magic user or psionic character who is using their abilites, I'm going to maintain that called shots, power attacks, aimed shots, and aimed called shots are just simply not worth it.

[kaid]

Also using the same logic it would make power punches almost impossible to get off due as they would have the same problems with being interrupted.

That's why I don't do power attacks, high level magic attacks, called shots, aimed shots, or aimed called shots.

The logical precedence set by Palladium Books is that Mages take 2 actions to cast high level spells because they have to focus and make sure to do all somatic components and channel their power etc. etc. It makes sense in a general capacity.
These can be interrupted. It breaks your concentration, you miss a hand gesture, you stumble over a word, whatever you want to call it, you waste a turn and nothing happens.

This whole concept is easily extrapolated into all 2 or more actioned abilities. If a magic user's concentration can be broken, a man taking aim can be knocked off of his aim, or a brawler could have to dodge a grenade making him lose his built up power for his final attack (a power punch in mechanics). It makes no sense for a magic user to have one set of rules dictating what happens when they take multiple actions to accomplish a single task, and another dictating the effects differently for other people.

I mean, I admit. Palladium does have a way about making neigh arbitrary rulings that don't seem to follow any sort of logical progression, so maybe magic users are just whimps while everyone else is able to maintain whatever they used up their action for no matter what.

So, as long as the rules stay as clear as dirt on the subject of how multiple actions are effected if you aren't a magic user or psionic character who is using their abilites, I'm going to maintain that called shots, power attacks, aimed shots, and aimed called shots are just simply not worth it.

I can understand the thought behind things like called shots taking extra actions as prior to the two action rule I would have some people in my group called shot almost every bloody attack. Got so bad people just called him the decapitator as there was not much reason for him to not take the called shot to the head every time. The penalty of using two attacks to hit a vulnerable target makes plenty of sense balance wise and gives a good reason not to abuse it. That said throwing even more sever penalties on top of it seems unwarranted.

I myself always read the rules about interrupting magic users as very specific to the act of using magic given how it specifically calls it out as being possible to interrupt it.

[Killer Cyborg]

Well, again, we know that Called Shots ARE able to be interrupted.
It's just a matter of what exactly it takes to interrupt them.
For me, it makes sense that anything that would logically disrupt a person's aim would prevent them from making a Called Shot.

[GenThunderfist]

Well, again, we know that Called Shots ARE able to be interrupted.
It's just a matter of what exactly it takes to interrupt them.
For me, it makes sense that anything that would logically disrupt a person's aim would prevent them from making a Called Shot.

I completely agree, unfortunately that is almost everything in a standard fight. From getting hit in the chest by a fireball, to having to dodge, should throw off a persons aim. I mean, a force field SHOULD help, but things like armor where you are still getting physically hit shouldn't help much in the way of getting out of interrupting your attacks. The only time I have ever used called shots is when I have overstacked attacks on top of my enemy. GM says "And he's out of actions" and I have 3 or 4 left? Yeah, called shots to the head all day and he can't do anything about it
Other than that? I feel like they put you at a distinct disadvantage in the middle of a fight.

[GenThunderfist]

Well, again, we know that Called Shots ARE able to be interrupted.
It's just a matter of what exactly it takes to interrupt them.
For me, it makes sense that anything that would logically disrupt a person's aim would prevent them from making a Called Shot.

I completely agree, unfortunately that is almost everything in a standard fight. From getting hit in the chest by a fireball, to having to dodge, should throw off a persons aim. I mean, a force field SHOULD help, but things like armor where you are still getting physically hit shouldn't help much in the way of getting out of interrupting your attacks. The only time I have ever used called shots is when I have overstacked attacks on top of my enemy. GM says "And he's out of actions" and I have 3 or 4 left? Yeah, called shots to the head all day and he can't do anything about it
Other than that? I feel like they put you at a distinct disadvantage in the middle of a fight.

[Killer Cyborg]

Well, again, we know that Called Shots ARE able to be interrupted.
It's just a matter of what exactly it takes to interrupt them.
For me, it makes sense that anything that would logically disrupt a person's aim would prevent them from making a Called Shot.

I completely agree, unfortunately that is almost everything in a standard fight. From getting hit in the chest by a fireball, to having to dodge, should throw off a persons aim. I mean, a force field SHOULD help, but things like armor where you are still getting physically hit shouldn't help much in the way of getting out of interrupting your attacks. The only time I have ever used called shots is when I have overstacked attacks on top of my enemy. GM says "And he's out of actions" and I have 3 or 4 left? Yeah, called shots to the head all day and he can't do anything about it
Other than that? I feel like they put you at a distinct disadvantage in the middle of a fight.

That's one way to do it!
Personally, I always try to make the most of any cover in the area. It means I'm less likely to have my aim interrupted if I have to make an Aimed or Called Shot.
Then again, I usually don't bother with either unless I have a surprise round due to ambush, or the enemy runs out of attacks, etc. etc.
Against a lot of enemies, there isn't even much reason to.

[flatline]

I can understand the thought behind things like called shots taking extra actions as prior to the two action rule I would have some people in my group called shot almost every bloody attack.

If you think about it, that's the way it should be. In real life, every shot is a called shot whether it's for the head, hand, leg, or center of mass. The fact that the rules treat a called shot for anything other than the center of mass as an incorrectly penalized special case is what is so offensive. It should be harder to hit a small or well defended target, not slower.

It gets even more ridiculous in hand to hand combat where it is often easier to hit someone in the face or head than the main body.

--flatline

[Killer Cyborg]

I can understand the thought behind things like called shots taking extra actions as prior to the two action rule I would have some people in my group called shot almost every bloody attack.

If you think about it, that's the way it should be. In real life, every shot is a called shot whether it's for the head, hand, leg, or center of mass. The fact that the rules treat a called shot for anything other than the center of mass as an incorrectly penalized special case is what is so offensive. It should be harder to hit a small or well defended target, not slower.

The more you have to aim in order to get a good shot, the slower you get to shoot.

Although (as mentioned) I more or less agree; there should be a strike penalty that may be eliminated or reduced by spending extra attacks, but people should be able to attempt a snapshot whenever they like.
Then again, since a Natural 20 hits whatever you're aiming for, you actually CAN effectively try a Called Shot in one action... it's just not very accurate.

It gets even more ridiculous in hand to hand combat where it is often easier to hit someone in the face or head than the main body.

--flatline

Agreed.
But I have yet to see any rules that realistically account for hit location, for any system.

[kaid]

I can understand the thought behind things like called shots taking extra actions as prior to the two action rule I would have some people in my group called shot almost every bloody attack.

If you think about it, that's the way it should be. In real life, every shot is a called shot whether it's for the head, hand, leg, or center of mass. The fact that the rules treat a called shot for anything other than the center of mass as an incorrectly penalized special case is what is so offensive. It should be harder to hit a small or well defended target, not slower.

The more you have to aim in order to get a good shot, the slower you get to shoot.

Although (as mentioned) I more or less agree; there should be a strike penalty that may be eliminated or reduced by spending extra attacks, but people should be able to attempt a snapshot whenever they like.
Then again, since a Natural 20 hits whatever you're aiming for, you actually CAN effectively try a Called Shot in one action... it's just not very accurate.

It gets even more ridiculous in hand to hand combat where it is often easier to hit someone in the face or head than the main body.

--flatline

Agreed.
But I have yet to see any rules that realistically account for hit location, for any system.

If I remember the rules right it is harder to hit a called shot I am pretty sure the base roll needed to strike when doing a called shot is a 12. That combined with the extra attack needed seem plenty of penalties without assuming others not listed as well.

[Killer Cyborg]

If I remember the rules right it is harder to hit a called shot I am pretty sure the base roll needed to strike when doing a called shot is a 12. That combined with the extra attack needed seem plenty of penalties without assuming others not listed as well.

The old rule was 12, but if you got between 4 and 12 you hit the main body.
The current rule doesn't make it harder to hit, it just makes it take an extra attack.

[wakiza]

Maybe the haters of the called and aimed shots are overthinking it a bit. Called shots should be difficult in a fight. Combat is fluid and everything is in motion. There is a reason they don't teach soldiers or cops to make called shots. If they deem deadly force is necessary (ie using a gun) they aim at the torso until their enemy is down. Snipers can use aimed shots and aimed called shots, but again it takes time to line up the perfect shot and snipers are generally hidden so they won't get interrupted.

Called shots and aimed shots should be situationally dependant, so no, you can't, and shouldn't, get the benefits of called and aimed shots without a bit of planning. I always thought that was the designers' intent, as always I could be wrong. You watch too much TV if you think you should be able to run around in a gun battle and use a called or aimed shot while you are trying to dodge incoming fire. You need cover and/or concealment. The sniper skill just gives you an additional edge, but doesn't relieve you of the planning part.

The best uses of these types of shots that I have seen as a player or GM is in the suprise portion, along with the first few actions, at the beginning of combat (deadly), but that always made sense to me. Another great use of the called shot was destroying antennas to prevent the call for reinforcements, but that should be difficult to do in a gun battle, well unless you have someone designated, and positioned, as a sniper. I don't think using the aimed or called shot mechanic in a moving gun battle to kill quicker with head shots was a consideration of the game designers and personally I think that ability should be very difficult. So in general, I think the rules make sense and should be enforced.

However, as a GM I allow one action called shots when someone is dealing with a large unmoving object, like a glitter boy that is planted and firing away. I try to always use common sense for the rules and I always tell my players to ask for an adjustment if they truly think it makes sense.

Just my take.

[flatline]

Maybe the haters of the called and aimed shots are overthinking it a bit. Called shots should be difficult in a fight.

I don't think anyone is arguing that called shots shouldn't be difficult. What we're arguing against is that the rules make them take longer. Which is demonstrably not the case in real life.

Combat is fluid and everything is in motion. There is a reason they don't teach soldiers or cops to make called shots. If they deem deadly force is necessary (ie using a gun) they aim at the torso until their enemy is down.

Shooting at the center of mass is just as much a called shot as shooting at someone's head, leg, or hand. The fact that the rules unrealistically penalize the later but not the former is part of my issue with the new rules.

The proper thing to do is assign a penalty based on how small and how far away a target is to hit, not on whether or not the target is part of a larger thing. This is what the rules originally did. The new rules for called shots in RUE are a tremendous step backwards.

--flatline

[eliakon]

Maybe the haters of the called and aimed shots are overthinking it a bit. Called shots should be difficult in a fight.

I don't think anyone is arguing that called shots shouldn't be difficult. What we're arguing against is that the rules make them take longer. Which is demonstrably not the case in real life.

Combat is fluid and everything is in motion. There is a reason they don't teach soldiers or cops to make called shots. If they deem deadly force is necessary (ie using a gun) they aim at the torso until their enemy is down.

Shooting at the center of mass is just as much a called shot as shooting at someone's head, leg, or hand. The fact that the rules unrealistically penalize the later but not the former is part of my issue with the new rules.

The proper thing to do is assign a penalty based on how small and how far away a target is to hit, not on whether or not the target is part of a larger thing. This is what the rules originally did. The new rules for called shots in RUE are a tremendous step backwards.

--flatline

The current rules seem more of a "you can take unaimed snap shots for one action" this is combined with a DIFFERENT rule that says "all damage goes to main body unless otherwise specified" to get the "you can shoot the main body for one action" If you want to actually shoot AT something specific you need to make an aimed shot, if your just "shooting at them" then you dont.....

[Killer Cyborg]

The current rules seem more of a "you can take unaimed snap shots for one action" this is combined with a DIFFERENT rule that says "all damage goes to main body unless otherwise specified" to get the "you can shoot the main body for one action" If you want to actually shoot AT something specific you need to make an aimed shot, if your just "shooting at them" then you dont....

We've always played it that if you're wanting to shoot anything other than the main body, then you're "calling" your shot. And we don't play that crap that a called shot takes more than one action. You just have to hit a nat 12 in order for your called shot to succeed at hitting the part you've called. If you don't hit the nat 12, but it's still over 4, then you hit the main body.

That pretty much kills any incentive to NOT make called shots.

[Akashic Soldier]

The main body isn't "the torso" its the entire body. The main body is the generic term used to describe "total hit points/m.d.c." That is why if your main body is damaged a percentage of the structure of the arms, legs, etc is reduced along side it.

[Killer Cyborg]

That pretty much kills any incentive to NOT make called shots.

And my games don't suffer for it. Note: The nat 12 or higher...

By the rules, it's not a NAT 12, it's a modified 12.

[Killer Cyborg]

The main body isn't "the torso" its the entire body. The main body is the generic term used to describe "total hit points/m.d.c." That is why if your main body is damaged a percentage of the structure of the arms, legs, etc is reduced along side it.

RUE 362
The main body of vehicles and giant creatures is typically the lagest area of body mass offered by the target. On people/humanoid creatures that is the upper torso (chest and waist).

[wakiza]

I don't think anyone is arguing that called shots shouldn't be difficult. What we're arguing against is that the rules make them take longer. Which is demonstrably not the case in real life.

Demonstrably . . . how? I can hit the main body of a moving target pretty easily, but it take a little more time to hit a specific spot.

Shooting at the center of mass is just as much a called shot as shooting at someone's head, leg, or hand. The fact that the rules unrealistically penalize the later but not the former is part of my issue with the new rules.

Not true, just trying to hit a target means center mass. True a percentage of the time you may hit another part of the body, but if you try to make rules for that it gets too complicated. (See AS' post quoted below) You are getting to caught up in the terminology and are not seeing what the rules are trying to simulate. Go to a shooting range that has an option of a moving target and try to hit a specific part of the target rather than just hitting the target. It takes more time. The default of the main body is for rule simplicity.

The proper thing to do is assign a penalty based on how small and how far away a target is to hit, not on whether or not the target is part of a larger thing. This is what the rules originally did. The new rules for called shots in RUE are a tremendous step backwards.

Too complicated, but house rule it that way if its what you want. And no matter how you practice it, hitting a specific part of a taget takes more time than just hitting the target itself.

And my games don't suffer for it. Note: The nat 12 or higher doesn't necessarily mean the called shot is successful, it's simply a requirement to preform a called shot. Then the negative modifiers are factored in (-3 to hit the head, -5 to hit the hand, etc) and the victim still gets an opportunity to dodge/dive for cover. I've been running it this way for 16+ years, and it works great. Most of the time, my players work the main body anyway, unless they're desperate or wanting to do some cool cinematic stuff.

Could work if you have a good group, but I've seen this house rule abused for a lot of head shot killing. House rules always work if the party is okay with them.

The main body isn't "the torso" its the entire body. The main body is the generic term used to describe "total hit points/m.d.c." That is why if your main body is damaged a percentage of the structure of the arms, legs, etc is reduced along side it.

Absolutely agree, that is why the armor as a whole is destroyed when the main body MDC is used up.

[flatline]

Shooting at the center of mass is just as much a called shot as shooting at someone's head, leg, or hand. The fact that the rules unrealistically penalize the later but not the former is part of my issue with the new rules.

The proper thing to do is assign a penalty based on how small and how far away a target is to hit, not on whether or not the target is part of a larger thing. This is what the rules originally did. The new rules for called shots in RUE are a tremendous step backwards.

--flatline

I disagree with your assessment of center mass being a called shot. I understand what you are thinking but its not so.

Center mass is easier than aiming at a specific target because you are focusing on your sights to develop a proper sight picture between front and rear sight, you don't focus on the target itself any more than needed to put the sight alignment from the front rear sight in the center of the mass you are aiming at. Hence the term "center mass".

If we were only talking about untrained or inexperienced shooters, I would totally agree with you. But a character that is practiced enough with the weapon to qualify as having a "weapon proficiency" with said weapon will be sufficiently skilled to establish their sight picture automatically.

Aiming at a different or specific portion can cause you to lose focus on your sight alignment in order to see a particular portion of the target better. A trained person can do this after becoming more practiced and a better shot.

But in combat you are trained to aim center mass for ease of sight alignment and efficiency.

Efficiency because if you aim at the head and wobble at little (at any appreciable distance) you miss. Aim at the largest portion of a human target (center mass) wobble a little and you still probably connect.

that's my two cents...

If I'm reading this correctly, you're basically saying that smaller targets are harder to hit. I totally agree with that. And I think the proper way to simulate a target being harder to hit is to assign penalties to the strike roll. Making the shot take longer to take does not accurately simulate how things really work.

I think that the common error being made in this thread is that people are not understanding the distinction between a called shot and an aimed shot. They are two distinctly different things.

--flatline

[Damian Magecraft]

Shooting at the center of mass is just as much a called shot as shooting at someone's head, leg, or hand. The fact that the rules unrealistically penalize the later but not the former is part of my issue with the new rules.

The proper thing to do is assign a penalty based on how small and how far away a target is to hit, not on whether or not the target is part of a larger thing. This is what the rules originally did. The new rules for called shots in RUE are a tremendous step backwards.

--flatline

I disagree with your assessment of center mass being a called shot. I understand what you are thinking but its not so.

Center mass is easier than aiming at a specific target because you are focusing on your sights to develop a proper sight picture between front and rear sight, you don't focus on the target itself any more than needed to put the sight alignment from the front rear sight in the center of the mass you are aiming at. Hence the term "center mass".

If we were only talking about untrained or inexperienced shooters, I would totally agree with you. But a character that is practiced enough with the weapon to qualify as having a "weapon proficiency" with said weapon will be sufficiently skilled to establish their sight picture automatically.

Aiming at a different or specific portion can cause you to lose focus on your sight alignment in order to see a particular portion of the target better. A trained person can do this after becoming more practiced and a better shot.

But in combat you are trained to aim center mass for ease of sight alignment and efficiency.

Efficiency because if you aim at the head and wobble at little (at any appreciable distance) you miss. Aim at the largest portion of a human target (center mass) wobble a little and you still probably connect.

that's my two cents...

If I'm reading this correctly, you're basically saying that smaller targets are harder to hit. I totally agree with that. And I think the proper way to simulate a target being harder to hit is to assign penalties to the strike roll. Making the shot take longer to take does not accurately simulate how things really work.

I think that the common error being made in this thread is that people are not understanding the distinction between a called shot and an aimed shot. They are two distinctly different things.

--flatline

yes they are...
one actually gives you a +3 to strike
The other is just a player abuse away from being house ruled into non-existence.
as has happened with other combat abilities.

[wakiza]

I think that the common error being made in this thread is that people are not understanding the distinction between a called shot and an aimed shot. They are two distinctly different things.

--flatline

Actually I think this is where you may be mistaken in your understanding of the mechanics involved. You assume that there is no aiming involved in a called shot. Aiming is an intergral part of any shot. The more you aim the better the shot and aiming takes time.

-Single shots to center mass still require aiming albeit a lot less.
-Called shots requiring a bit more aiming as you are trying to hit a specific part of the target instead of just center mass. (and if that spot is particularly small you get a negative to hit on top of the additional time it takes)
-Aimed shots at center mass require about the same concentration that a called shot does as the shooter is trying to ensure a hit on center mass.
-An aimed called shot takes even more time as you are trying to ensure a hit on a specific part of the target.

These mechanics make sense for the game and in real life. Be honest with the test and try it out at a shooting range and you'll see.

[flatline]

I think that the common error being made in this thread is that people are not understanding the distinction between a called shot and an aimed shot. They are two distinctly different things.

--flatline

Actually I think this is where you may be mistaken in your understanding of the mechanics involved. You assume that there is no aiming involved in a called shot. Aiming is an intergral part of any shot. The more you aim the better the shot and aiming takes time.

-Single shots to center mass still require aiming albeit a lot less.
-Called shots requiring a bit more aiming as you are trying to hit a specific part of the target instead of just center mass. (and if that spot is particularly small you get a negative to hit on top of the additional time it takes)
-Aimed shots at center mass require about the same concentration that a called shot does as the shooter is trying to ensure a hit on center mass.
-An aimed called shot takes even more time as you are trying to ensure a hit on a specific part of the target.

These mechanics make sense for the game and in real life. Be honest with the test and try it out at a shooting range and you'll see.

I have already performed this test. More than once, in fact.

I can empty my Glock 17 in the same amount of time (17 shots in about 15 seconds) and get the same 3-4 inch group whether I'm shooting at the target's "center of mass", head, shoulder, or whatever corner of the target I decide to use for my sight picture.

I even keep the same attack rate when I call each shot differently (head, then chest, then left shoulder, then right shoulder, etc until I empty the magazine).

If I take more careful aim, my group gets smaller (2-3 inches) and it takes me almost a minute to empty the magazine. Again, it makes no difference if I'm targeting the "center of mass", head, shoulder, or corner.

Conclusions:
My attack rate remains slightly more than one shot per second whether I'm shooting at the center of mass or "calling" my shots. Taking extra time to more carefully aim does, unsurprisingly, reduce my attack rate to slightly less than 1 shot every 3 seconds.

I am by no means an accomplished shooter, but my test results clearly and repeatedly contradict RUE's called shot rule.

What were the results of your own testing?

--flatline

[Killer Cyborg]

What distance was the target?

[flatline]

What distance was the target?

I think the first row of targets is 15 feet, but I'm not 100% sure.

--flatline

[Akashic Soldier]

The main body isn't "the torso" its the entire body. The main body is the generic term used to describe "total hit points/m.d.c." That is why if your main body is damaged a percentage of the structure of the arms, legs, etc is reduced along side it.

AS, normally I'm with you on all you're post... but this time, not so much. I don't understand how a helmet would suffer structurally if the chest plate or the rooster piece gets hit. SB1 is pretty specific about "if the head is destroyed" and so on and so forth and RUE and CE even start breaking down body armor SDC into sections. I've always taken it that; yes, "main body" is generic for overall MDC, but that it is also a location, meaning anything that's not an extremity.

That's cool man. It makes book keeping a ***** too. Its mentioned in either the second (or third weapons book)? Round about the area where it is telling you what percentages body locations have.

Mechanically, the main body has X S.D.C./Hit Points and then everything else is determined as a derivative thereof because essentially main body S.D.C./Hit Points is your "core" S.D.C./Hit Points. Thus, if your leg is 30% of your main body (that is how you determine its value), when your main body S.D.C./Hit Points decrease so do those secondary values. This is why I face palm when I see people claiming that the helmet, arms, and legs are left behind with full M.D.C. whenever you kill anyone. Because its just ludicrous and whereas admittedly its an obscure rule, its there.

The big difference comes down to the fact that you can called shot for a specific region and destroy it easier for additional effects (now you have no hand, etc). Where as destroying the main body just "kills" someone. Likewise, destroying the head will also just kill someone. The reason certain armors and legs have their values explicitly listed is 1.) to save you doing math and 2.) because some armors are designed with "heavier armor" on the head, arms, legs, etc.

Anyway, folks can use or or not use it or say I'm wrong or talking out my ass, that's fine. This is my one post for the day and I don't care if folks agree or not.
I just wanted to take the time to respond to notafraidtodie since he was polite to me.

[wakiza]

I have already performed this test. More than once, in fact.

I can empty my Glock 17 in the same amount of time (17 shots in about 15 seconds) and get the same 3-4 inch group whether I'm shooting at the target's "center of mass", head, shoulder, or whatever corner of the target I decide to use for my sight picture.

I even keep the same attack rate when I call each shot differently (head, then chest, then left shoulder, then right shoulder, etc until I empty the magazine).

If I take more careful aim, my group gets smaller (2-3 inches) and it takes me almost a minute to empty the magazine. Again, it makes no difference if I'm targeting the "center of mass", head, shoulder, or corner.

Conclusions:
My attack rate remains slightly more than one shot per second whether I'm shooting at the center of mass or "calling" my shots. Taking extra time to more carefully aim does, unsurprisingly, reduce my attack rate to slightly less than 1 shot every 3 seconds.

I am by no means an accomplished shooter, but my test results clearly and repeatedly contradict RUE's called shot rule.

What were the results of your own testing?

--flatline

That is pretty damn good even for 15 feet. I didn't realize you were talking about ranges that short, my mistake. I now understand your complaint. Though a moving target would still still cause the delays I was talking about above even at 15'. I meant ranges of about 50' or greater with a pistol. I can't give you the specifics as the last time I was at the range was about 5 months ago, but I know I fired a .45 pretty quick and could still hit the target regularly, but If I wanted to have even a chance to hit something specific on the target I had to slow down. And to ensure I hit the target where I wanted to I had to slow down even more.

If you are having gun fights at a 15' range there must be a lot of armor replacement going on. If the rule really bugs you re gun fights at that close a range I would just ask the GM for a house rule if I were you. I don't think I've had a GM use the called shot rule when the taget was static and I was at point blank range, and 15' is pretty much point blank.

BTW: I grew up shooting and I received the expert marksman medal when I was in the military and i'm pretty sure i couldn't fire off 17 rounds in 15 seconds and get them all in 3" grouping, so very nice!!

[Akashic Soldier]

Flatline is also ignoring the fact that shooting as fast as possible, accurate or otherwise, is typically called performing a "Burst Shot" or "Burst Attack", "Three Round Burst", or "Spray."

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

Flatline is also ignoring the fact that shooting as fast as possible, accurate or otherwise, is typically called performing a "Burst Shot" or "Burst Attack", "Three Round Burst", or "Spray."

Since he's using a semi-automatic firearm (a Glock 17) - no, he's not.

One shot per squeeze.

And, honestly, im not an amazing shot, and hadn't (until recently) been to a range in quite some time, but I can put all 8 rounds from my grandfathers' M1911 in a 4-6" group at 20 yards (so, 60ft). I can snap shot the head of a target as it pops up at the same range about 70% of the time (at least, last week i was capable of it - and that is without having practiced with a firearm in over a decade).

Aiming where you want the bullets to go, specifically, isn't super hard. It is more difficult than just aiming for center mass, assuredly, but it doesn't necessarily take any more time. That's why there's already a rule designed to address this additional difficulty - a higher target number to even hit, for instance - the added "takes an extra attack" isn't realistic at all.

That being said... realism takes a 10th row seat to game balance in any and all cases, IMO. Game balance doesn't really seem to be at stake here, so siding with realism seems the smarter idea.