Guns in Melee

[Richardson]

Hello all, I apologize if this has been dealt with elsewhere on the forum but this is my first post. I was wondering if any rules for fighting with ranged weapons in melee have been posted for the Rifts setting. It seems to me that there is little reason to include equipment such as the bayonet if a man wielding a plasma cannon has the same combat modifiers as a man with a knife. I see in the Rifts Ultimate Edition core rulebook that a Backflip may be used to escape/exit a melee, but if you can always shoot a gun why would anyone bother unless they were entangled or otherwise held still? Aside from the obvious "because your opponent only has a knife" answer of course. Or in a more extreme example, does a City Rate who against all odds prowls up to a Glitterboy to cut his ammunition feed with a vibro sabre gain NO advantages in the rules as written against being splattered by a Boomgun? The RUE corebook seems to suggest the GM having an NPC in a "superior" position such as a footman vs. a robot vehicle or supernatural creature use a lessened form of attack such as a UAR-1 Enforcer performing a Stomp attack against a goblin with a spear instead of bothering to bend over and fire a railgun burst. But outside of saving ammo and dramatic effect there is no reason not to overkill by shooting your main guns even while engaged in frantic melee.

I would like to see an honest reason to fear a Juicer in hand to hand more than one at range, or for a CS Glitterboy Killer to actually defeat a Glitterboy once within range to use his six foot blades. Yes being swarmed by sword wielding Xitictics or pounced upon by a pair of demon wolves should be something a player character can actually live through if they take enough risks and are smart enough to get away; with the old fashioned "blasting your way out" being a viable option to end or escape from most fights. But doesn't it makes sense in a bar fight for the man with a switch blade to have a slight advantage over the man with a sniper rifle if they are standing literally toe to toe?

[Akashic Soldier]

Hello all, I apologize if this has been dealt with elsewhere on the forum but this is my first post. I was wondering if any rules for fighting with ranged weapons in melee have been posted for the Rifts setting. It seems to me that there is little reason to include equipment such as the bayonet if a man wielding a plasma cannon has the same combat modifiers as a man with a knife. I see in the Rifts Ultimate Edition core rulebook that a Backflip may be used to escape/exit a melee, but if you can always shoot a gun why would anyone bother unless they were entangled or otherwise held still? Aside from the obvious "because your opponent only has a knife" answer of course. Or in a more extreme example, does a City Rate who against all odds prowls up to a Glitterboy to cut his ammunition feed with a vibro sabre gain NO advantages in the rules as written against being splattered by a Boomgun? The RUE corebook seems to suggest the GM having an NPC in a "superior" position such as a footman vs. a robot vehicle or supernatural creature use a lessened form of attack such as a UAR-1 Enforcer performing a Stomp attack against a goblin with a spear instead of bothering to bend over and fire a railgun burst. But outside of saving ammo and dramatic effect there is no reason not to overkill by shooting your main guns even while engaged in frantic melee.

I would like to see an honest reason to fear a Juicer in hand to hand more than one at range, or for a CS Glitterboy Killer to actually defeat a Glitterboy once within range to use his six foot blades. Yes being swarmed by sword wielding Xitictics or pounced upon by a pair of demon wolves should be something a player character can actually live through if they take enough risks and are smart enough to get away; with the old fashioned "blasting your way out" being a viable option to end or escape from most fights. But doesn't it makes sense in a bar fight for the man with a switch blade to have a slight advantage over the man with a sniper rifle if they are standing literally toe to toe?

No reason to apologize brothah... I'm always here to help.

A character with Back Flip ability can do the following:
● Backflip (Counts as one attack/action): If used in place of an ordinary dodge, the character must roll higher than his opponent's strike roll using only the natural dice roll (no dodge bonuses). Success indicates the Defender may perform a free leap action following the defense that does not count towards his maximum allotted movement this round. However, failure to beat the strike means taking full damage without a chance to "Roll with Impact." Only one backflip/backflip attack/backflip escape may be performed per melee round (15 seconds).
● Backflip Attack (Counts as two attacks/actions): Backflip Attack is identical to the standard Backflip (see above) except that after performing dodging the attack a character with this maneuver may opt to relocate himself to the flank of his attacker may launch a simultaneous strike rather than gaining the free Leap this melee. Only one backflip/backflip attack/backflip escape may be attempted per melee round (15 seconds).
● Backflip Escape (Counts as one attack/action): The "Backflip Escape‟ is simply a "Backflip" performed as an attack rather than in defense of an attack. This maneuver allows the character to leap or jump without it counting as part of his movement, allowing him to quickly reposition himself elsewhere on the battlefield. A successful Backflip Escape indicates that the character has been relocated to a place on the battlefield that is difficult to reach by their enemies and they must spend one attack/action (and the appropriate movement) to be able to make Close-Range Attacks against the character. Additionally, ranged attacks may only be made by making "Called Shots‟ as the character is treated as having partial cover in his current location (perhaps they cannot draw a line to fire to him past their own forces or there is foliage preventing an easy target-lock); whatever the reason, this protection lasts until the end of the melee round (15 seconds). Alternatively, a character that has performed a successful Backflip Escape may choose to automatically win initiative on the next turn. Only one backflip/backflip attack/backflip escape may be attempted per melee round (15 seconds).

As for using firearms in melee:
Close-Range (50 feet or 15.2 m from the Attacker): -5 to Parry or Dodge.
Point Blank Range (10 feet or 3 m from the Attacker): -10 to Parry or Dodge.

Additionally, optional rules are available in the Rifts: Game Mater Guide, wherein "point blank" attacks (those pressed directly to the face of your opponent, etc) counts as a "Death Blow." This is covered somewhat in the R:UE but gone into in more detail in the Rifts: Game Master Guide.

Allow me to summarize for you:
● Death Blow (Counts as one attack/action): A special attack designed to kill an opponent in one or two strikes! This attack is often limited in hand to hand combat to the roll of a "natural" high strike number; i.e. death blow on a natural 18-20. Whenever the words "Death Blow‟ are presented without limitation, the character can use a death strike whenever he desires; however, such a devastating attack counts as two melee attacks/actions. Against humans and other S.D.C. creatures, the attack does double the normal damage, plus P.S. bonuses direct to Hit Points. This attack can be used with punches and kicks or hand-held weapons such as swords, clubs, etc. It is not applicable to guns and does not work through armor; the armor must be removed or penetrated. Against Mega-Damage Beings the attack does double normal damage, plus P.S. bonuses, and it is so devastating to the creature's body that it cannot bio-regenerate injury from a death blow for 1D4 hours! This attack is not applicable against M.D.C. 'Bots, 'Borgs and power armor, unless the M.D.C. attacker is making a Called Shot to the head or power supply, in which case double damage is inflicted to that part of the robot or armor.

[SittingBull]

If its melee, parry the gun away. Mess up his shot. >.>

[Akashic Soldier]

If its melee, parry the gun away. Mess up his shot. >.>

Parrying is difficult but that is good thinking. Exactly the mentality I try to encourage in my players. Have 50 experience points.

[ShadowLogan]

If its melee, parry the gun away. Mess up his shot. >.>

Entangle might be better. Parrying a gun in melee combat is done at -10, but it doesn't say anything about negatives to entangle IINM.

[Richardson]

So rules as written there is no good reason to enter melee if either party is carrying a gun. Matter of fact it is the exact opposite of what any sane character would want to do. I must say that is very disappointing in a game claiming to reward heroic actions.

To bring back my earlier example of a sword wielding fast character (City Rat, Crazy, etc.) who actually managed to make it to melee range with a rogue Glitterboy is more likely to die than fight back. In other words a six foot tall nimble swordsman is -more- likely to be shot by a ten foot long (going off proportions from the picture), 867 lbs. shoulder cannon fired by an eleven foot tall, 1.2 ton robot piloted by a man who can't even see easily to his left or right and is immobilized from the waist down thanks to having the robot's legs anchored into place by "super drilling pylons." That's ridiculous. If you are standing beneath a tank's main gun you shouldn't be able to be shot by it at all, let alone be MORE likely to take a direct hit.

I understand and agree that dodging a gun shot from less than ten feet away should be nigh impossible. But I would like to see rules, at least house rules, for participants firing ranged weapons while locked in melee where blades and fists can easily throw off a shooter's aim. Cannons, heavy railguns, and most robot weaponry should be remarkably difficult to fire at targets within a foot of them. Whereas rifles and carbines should be easier to fire while engaged in melee than cannons, with pistols being the easiest to fire of all with the fewest penalties.

I like the idea of parrying or pinning unattached/unconnected firearms. After all, how many movies have we seen where a soldier knocks a rifle's aim off because the shooter was trying to fire it at an opponent already too close in melee? Or how many martial arts movies or old westerns feature the hero simply taking the pistol straight out of a gun man's hand as soon as he draws it before the shooter can even rooster the hammer? What would a reasonable difficulty be for these feats?

To go along with new rules against shooting in melee, what about weapon proficiencies to help use a gun as a melee weapon? Using a rifle butt as a club is obviously weapon proficiency Blunt and likely does 1d6 SDC, but would a set bayonet fall under WP. Spear or WP. Knife?

[SittingBull]

Or if you have paired weapons skill. Parry AND Disarm! Just go young Steven Segal on them.

[SittingBull]

If its melee, parry the gun away. Mess up his shot. >.>

Entangle might be better. Parrying a gun in melee combat is done at -10, but it doesn't say anything about negatives to entangle IINM.

I always took that penalty to mean '-10 when trying to parry the bullet' not the actual gun before the round is fire.

[Akashic Soldier]

I must say that is very disappointing in a game claiming to reward heroic actions.

Its not heroic if there is no risk my friend. The reason its heroic is because of the risk. Likewise, you can always make called shots to destroy their firearms too (just like in animation and film). The M.D.C. for most weapons can be found in the R:GMG.

[SittingBull]

I see aimed or called shots A LOT LESS since aiming is an action now.

That is the rule change that hardest to get people to accept seems like.

[Nightmask]

I see aimed or called shots A LOT LESS since aiming is an action now.

That is the rule change that hardest to get people to accept seems like.

Not surprising, it's a disincentive to try when it costs actions. Better to just use the extra actions to do more damage and probably wear your enemy down faster that way than trying to do neat aimed or called shots.

[SittingBull]

Indeed.

[Noon]

Did people in real life use bayonet at close range, rather than fire the gun? The bayonet was for when you ran out of ammunition (and ironically used to open ammunition crates). It probably had more to do with military culture getting used to guns instead of swords - the bayonet ends up a kind of training wheels.

[flatline]

I see aimed or called shots A LOT LESS since aiming is an action now.

That is the rule change that hardest to get people to accept seems like.

That's because it's a really stupid rule to make called shots take an extra action.

--flatline

[Akashic Soldier]

it's a really stupid rule to make called shots take an extra action.

--flatline

I disagree. You see it in film and T.V. all the time.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Did people in real life use bayonet at close range, rather than fire the gun? The bayonet was for when you ran out of ammunition (and ironically used to open ammunition crates). It probably had more to do with military culture getting used to guns instead of swords - the bayonet ends up a kind of training wheels.

Using it aginst infantry was always secondary and little-used idea. the real use was to brace aginst a Cavalry charge. of course it wasn't too useful in that either, but it was better than not having them.

[Talavar]

it's a really stupid rule to make called shots take an extra action.

--flatline

I disagree. You see it in film and T.V. all the time.

You also see the opposite all the time, with highly accurate characters making the equivalent of called shots at extremely high rates of speed/without excess time spent aiming. Actually, I'm having trouble thinking of times when you don't see that....

[SittingBull]

One problem, that I have always seen, is we think aiming takes an action. "He aims for only a few seconds."

Well how long you aim depends on your number of actions.

A character with 3 actions, who aims, would take 5 seconds. A character with 6 actions is only aiming for 2.5 seconds.

It seems that 3 actions a melee is the default when 'an action takes 5 seconds'.

[flatline]

it's a really stupid rule to make called shots take an extra action.

--flatline

I disagree. You see it in film and T.V. all the time.

It sure is a good thing that film makers are required to accurately reflect reality.

Oh, wait, that's not true at all!

--flatline

[Akashic Soldier]

Okay, lets try explaining this from a game designer's/game master's point of view not that I think anyone actually cares what I have to say sometimes.

Making a called shot takes time, as does aiming, because the character needs to "line up" the target. Cinematic fiat dictates that for a character to impact something intentionally (not by chance; which is reflected by a critical hit), than they must make an active effort to do so. This is represented by the expenditure of an action. Sure, you can shoot a guy and it can randomly hit him in the hand but its just going to be "main body" damage because his hand is part of his main body and it isn't specifically damaged "more."

However, if a player declares that it is their INTENTION to injure the character's hand than should their attack be successful than this has greater effect because their 'intent' was to hurt the hand specifically. Some systems represent this as a penalty. However, by making it take an action you avoid the mechanical issues of every attack being an aimed/called shot/power attack to the head ("I mean, why wouldn't you?!").

So, as it is written... the player has to time their attack correctly... otherwise they won't specifically damage that area. This is exaggerated more so by the fact that these varying regions only have a portion of the main body's S.D.C./M.D.C.

Thus, though penalized... such attacks have a greater chance of inflicting wound penalties ("My hand! You stuck that pipe through my hand") because the hand's total structural capacity is lesser than the main body's and thus easier to wound... OR... as is more often the case, destroy ("You cut off my hand, you bastard!!").

As the rules are written now, this reflects it. Does it mean that some impatient players ***** and moan that they have to spend an action (typically 2.5 to 3 seconds) aiming to get a +3 while everyone else just gets to wail on the enemies in melee half the time? Sure. However, that is the tactical difference between melee combat and ranged combat. The ranged combatant doesn't hit as often (requires an 8 or higher as opposed to 5 or higher) and sometimes they have to deal with cover and obstructions. This is to balance the fact that most people cannot dodge a speeding bullet (-5 or -10). Its smart. People might not like it, but I think it reflects "animated/cinematic" action sequences well.

[flatline]

If a giant floating head one meter tall came floating out of a cave, it would take 1 action to shoot at it. However, if that exact same head were still attached to the body of a giant, suddenly it takes 2 actions to shoot at the head instead of the body?

Unbelievable.

--flatline

[Akashic Soldier]

So right off the bat, my fastest shot, like just snapping off a shot at some location, requires two attacks. It should be noted that the basic called shot is not "aimed" but is rather hastily done.

*Sighs* No. Also, keep in mind the average attack takes 2.5-3.0 seconds. So it "looks" like a quick shot. An aimed shot takes twice that; 5 seconds to 6 seconds. Characters with more than 5 attacks per melee act considerably faster.

Critical hits mean I deal more damage, not that I have circumvented the normal need for called shots.

Refer to the critical injury tables in Rifts: MB or the Robotic Damage Table in R:UE for how critical hits interact with specific locations without need for a called shot.

I'm pretty sure that last sentence doesn't make sense. If I perform a normal roll to strike I am shooting at your torso or whatever the largest target on your body is. Only called shots will hit anywhere else.

It makes perfect sense. Think about it from a cinematic point of view instead of trying to quantify definition by injury degree. Refer to S.D.C., once you understand the principle of S.D.C. and what it represents than you will understand what damage represents in the megaversal system.

[Akashic Soldier]

The fact is, called shots are crippling. Given the usual structural capacity of armors, it is almost guaranteed that you will destroy the main body faster than you will destroy the head. This is in no way a reflection of any tv show/book/movie/anime/cartoon/other game/video game that I have ever seen. It's also not smart, and it's poorly done.

I disagree. You just don't like it because you're only thinking about it from one direction without taking into account what damage represents.

As for the big head comment Drew, it is also false. Several robots are equipped with parts that are not "small of difficult targets" because they are not marked with an asterisk. Likewise, if a creature is 90% head than its head is going to be considered its body. Thinking anything else is just stupid.

[Killer Cyborg]

If a giant floating head one meter tall came floating out of a cave, it would take 1 action to shoot at it. However, if that exact same head were still attached to the body of a giant, suddenly it takes 2 actions to shoot at the head instead of the body?

Unbelievable.

--flatline

Well, it's not that bad.
But yeah, I think that Called Shots should be somewhat tied to target size.

[Killer Cyborg]

The fact is, called shots are crippling. Given the usual structural capacity of armors, it is almost guaranteed that you will destroy the main body faster than you will destroy the head. This is in no way a reflection of any tv show/book/movie/anime/cartoon/other game/video game that I have ever seen. It's also not smart, and it's poorly done.

I disagree. You just don't like it because you're only thinking about it from one direction without taking into account what damage represents.

As for the big head comment Drew, it is also false. Several robots are equipped with parts that are not "small of difficult targets" because they are not marked with an asterisk. Likewise, if a creature is 90% head than its head is going to be considered its body. Thinking anything else is just stupid.

I believe that the example was a creature that IS (90%) a big head that is x feet tall/wide, versus a creature with a head that is x feet tall/wide, but that also has a proportionate body.
In case A, hitting the x-sized target would be a standard shot- 1 action.
In case B, hitting the same x-sized target would be a Called Shot- 2 actions.

[flatline]

KC understood the intent of my example, but apparently it wasn't clear to everyone. Let's try a slightly different example.

If I want to shoot Jack the Pumpkin King in the head, I have to make a called shot which requires 2 actions. If Jack's body inexplicably decides to walk away leaving the head floating there in mid-air, suddenly it only requires 1 action to shoot at Jack's head.

--flatline

[GenThunderfist]

if a someone equipped with a knife is in close range, i would say that person has the advantage. While true that it's harder to dodge a shot once fired, before it is fired the melee character can move out of the shooters line of sight and level an attack easier or close in quickly enough as to make the shot unfeasible. This is why juicer's are so dangerous in melee combat, not to mention the massive pp bonuses that apply to melee combat. A juicer can be in front of you when you draw but be behind you by thetime you pull up to aim. This is where speed is deadly.

While there is no detailed hard and fast rule, a little use of common sense and imagination is required.

A person with a knife has nowhere near the same ability as a person with a gun in hand to hand range according to the rules.
A Juicer has auto-dodge, PP 30, and a vibro-knife that does 1d6 MD. We will call this a lv. 1 juicer so that means his best auto dodge bonus is +8 (straight PP bonuses).
The Gunman has a NG-57 out of RUE that does 2D4 MD. His bonues to hit is +1 from the necessary wp.
We are assuming both parties are wearing plastic man body armor, are level 1, and have similar attacks per melee. The juicer actually probably has 1 more but it really doesn't give him a distinct advantage.

Whenever the gunman shoots the Juicer is -10 to dodge. That means his auto dodge gets reduced to -2. He has a better chance to dodge (probably a straight roll) but that would mean eating up an attack. Meaning the Gunman can hit on a 7-20 and the Juicer can Autododge on a 9-20, meaning the gunman already has an advantage in his to hit range. His "standard" gun also beats the juicer's "standard" knife on damage range.

The Juicer can hit pretty well with his knife, having a high PP and a few bonuses, meaning that he will be pretty hard pressed to miss the gunman. However, the Gunman is at no penalties to dodge or parry the strike, and if he's lucky he might even have an exceptional PP score. Assuming he's not, the Juicer will get a few good hits in.

The "speed" that juicer's have doesn't really help him in this senario, as the close up gunman takes away a lot of the juicer's defensive capabilites, and assuming the juicer doesn't really want to take the hits and get his armor blown away, he will eat up his attacks dodging so he can get a straight roll of the dice, or maybe a +1. The gun beats the juicer on damage, although the vibro-knife should hit a little more often than the gun.

In the end, I'm not saying the Juicer shouldn't win out. However, I'm saying that the Juicer won't sit there and decimate his opponent, unless the dice throws are low for the Gunman and high for the Juicer; the Juicer will be taking a fair amount of damage.

Although logically the juicer should be able to "parry the gun away" there just is no ability to do that in the game mechanics. You can't parry guns. You can dodge their shots, or disarm them, but not knock them away as you can with a melee weapon.

Guns in melee are ridiculously hard to beat. The best bet is to disarm the gunman, draw your own gun, and blow him away.

[Akashic Soldier]

What does the damage represent? The only thing I have seen would be shock tables out of the weapons compendium, and they are optional and don't apply to people in armor. I don't like it because I think it's stupid, from both a gming and a playing prospective.

Read, "What is S.D.C." in Conversion Book 1 or The R:GMG.

[Akashic Soldier]

We're having two different conversations. Forget it.

[Akashic Soldier]

We're having two different conversations. Forget it.

What? No. Apparently you see something that I'm missing and I'm trying to understand what it is. If you'd humor me and participate in a friendly debate, then I think everyone could benefit from it.
The rules for called shots are crippling, and not fun from a players perspective. From a GMs perspective they don't make sense, they slow down gameplay, and I can clearly see that the players don't like them. From a designers perspective this rules are counter-intuitive to the purpose of called shots, they provide to many penalties, and they punish those who try to use them. Even given the relative weak explanation (spread over three books), there is little that actually redeems the called shot mechanic. On top of that, the reasoning given doesn't match logic or the penalties given. I don't mean to antagonize but I can't see how anyone would think that they are a set of "good" rules

I've explained the reasons I don't agree with that perspective earlier. I'm not here to debate man. I'm not angry or anything. I am just argued out. I am sick of everything being a massive struggle. I don't have a problem and the only complaints I get from people is when they have to wait their turn when making a called shot and honestly, I think it makes sense. Likewise, if you read the definition of things. I'm not talking mechanics. I'm talking about the "useless fluff" than you'll understand. If you don't, well, I hope one day you do but I can't make you and I'm not going to be able to enlighten you. However, I've had one player come to me and say how awesome it was and how much they love S.D.C. and how intuitive the combat system is and how much "Its like in the movies" (words right out of his mouth). So clearly, its not just me. Thankfully.

[Killer Cyborg]

You can't parry guns.

Where's it say that?

[Killer Cyborg]

KC understood the intent of my example, but apparently it wasn't clear to everyone. Let's try a slightly different example.

If I want to shoot Jack the Pumpkin King in the head, I have to make a called shot which requires 2 actions. If Jack's body inexplicably decides to walk away leaving the head floating there in mid-air, suddenly it only requires 1 action to shoot at Jack's head.

--flatline

Alternatively, you could go with:
If I want to shoot the broad side of a barn, that only requires one action.
If I want to shoot a giant robot in the foot, and his foot happens to be the size of of a barn, that requires two actions.
Even if I'm standing the same distance away from the target in each case, using the same weapons, and neither target is moving.

I agree that this is an issue with the rules. Personally, I think that they should have some kind of bonuses and penalties based on the size of the target.
Something clearer than "-3 or -4 to hit 'small' targets," or "you need a Called Shot to hit anything other than the main body.
Something more along the lines of "Hitting a target that is 1' in size or smaller will require a Called Shot," with separate, overlapping rules for strike penalties.
And while I have no issue with requiring two attacks to try a Called Shot, I think that's what it should take to make a Called Shot without additional penalties, and that you should be able to make a Called Shot in a single action if you choose... but at additional strike penalties.

Although, really, if you get into that, then it would probably make more sense to simply impose strike penalties for small targets, but to also allow strike bonuses for spending extra actions to Aim.

[Mack]

KC understood the intent of my example, but apparently it wasn't clear to everyone. Let's try a slightly different example.

If I want to shoot Jack the Pumpkin King in the head, I have to make a called shot which requires 2 actions. If Jack's body inexplicably decides to walk away leaving the head floating there in mid-air, suddenly it only requires 1 action to shoot at Jack's head.

This is where a GM is supposed to apply a little common sense. The rules will never cover all possible situations. Strict adherence to them was never intended.

[flatline]

KC understood the intent of my example, but apparently it wasn't clear to everyone. Let's try a slightly different example.

If I want to shoot Jack the Pumpkin King in the head, I have to make a called shot which requires 2 actions. If Jack's body inexplicably decides to walk away leaving the head floating there in mid-air, suddenly it only requires 1 action to shoot at Jack's head.

This is where a GM is supposed to apply a little common sense. The rules will never cover all possible situations. Strict adherence to them was never intended.

So when would it ever make sense for a called shot that isn't also an aimed shot to require an extra action?

--flatline

[MaxxSterling]

Just gotta face it, if you aren't willing to implement the weapon compendiums rules, you're probably not going to be one shot killing anything anyhow unless it's at point blank or MDC on SDC.

We have always gotten around this problem in games, by simply following the rules and carrying the largest possible weapons you can. I can spend possibly 5-6 attacks aiming, calling and hopefully hitting 2-3 times which ultimately has little effect. Or I can just hammer them with 1d6x10 - 4d6x10 depending on the gun 5-6 times. Far better to just have everyone play glitterboys or grab HI-80 Rifles on burst, then to try to play sniper type characters.

I do also run a game using the Weapon Compendium rules, which is a PITA because you have break down all the #'s for the body parts, plus most of the armor suits. And in MDC combat, since there's no AR, even if shooting in the head, it still always takes 2 shots/2 melee attacks to kill. 1 to break the helmet assuming you can in 1 shot and then 1 to break the head assuming you can in 1 shot.

It's just not a system designed to allow for 1 shot, 1 kill type of scenarios as written. As far as the comments on it being too realistic. I have never in life used anything related to Rifts, K.S. or Palladium Books as being realistic. It's just not the way these games are made.

[Killer Cyborg]

KC understood the intent of my example, but apparently it wasn't clear to everyone. Let's try a slightly different example.

If I want to shoot Jack the Pumpkin King in the head, I have to make a called shot which requires 2 actions. If Jack's body inexplicably decides to walk away leaving the head floating there in mid-air, suddenly it only requires 1 action to shoot at Jack's head.

This is where a GM is supposed to apply a little common sense. The rules will never cover all possible situations. Strict adherence to them was never intended.

In which cases is the rule supposed to be ignored, though?
As it stands, I shoot at a human-torso-sized target that happens to be a human, that's one action.
I shoot at a human-sized target that happens to be the arm or leg or head or tentacle of something bigger than a human, that's two actions.

Is it common sense to ignore the rule when shooting a Glitter Boy in the leg, for example?

[Mack]

KC understood the intent of my example, but apparently it wasn't clear to everyone. Let's try a slightly different example.

If I want to shoot Jack the Pumpkin King in the head, I have to make a called shot which requires 2 actions. If Jack's body inexplicably decides to walk away leaving the head floating there in mid-air, suddenly it only requires 1 action to shoot at Jack's head.

This is where a GM is supposed to apply a little common sense. The rules will never cover all possible situations. Strict adherence to them was never intended.

In which cases is the rule supposed to be ignored, though?
As it stands, I shoot at a human-torso-sized target that happens to be a human, that's one action.
I shoot at a human-sized target that happens to be the arm or leg or head or tentacle of something bigger than a human, that's two actions.

Is it common sense to ignore the rule when shooting a Glitter Boy in the leg, for example?

If the GM thinks so, yes. However, there are other factors to be considered.
--10 feet away and you're using a rifle? Sure.
--1000 feet away and you're using a pistol? Not so much.

Personally, I'd much rather the GM wing it than trying to create a formula that incorporates target size, distance, and weapon used.

[Grell]

KC understood the intent of my example, but apparently it wasn't clear to everyone. Let's try a slightly different example.

If I want to shoot Jack the Pumpkin King in the head, I have to make a called shot which requires 2 actions. If Jack's body inexplicably decides to walk away leaving the head floating there in mid-air, suddenly it only requires 1 action to shoot at Jack's head.

This is where a GM is supposed to apply a little common sense. The rules will never cover all possible situations. Strict adherence to them was never intended.

In which cases is the rule supposed to be ignored, though?
As it stands, I shoot at a human-torso-sized target that happens to be a human, that's one action.
I shoot at a human-sized target that happens to be the arm or leg or head or tentacle of something bigger than a human, that's two actions.

Is it common sense to ignore the rule when shooting a Glitter Boy in the leg, for example?

If the GM thinks so, yes. However, there are other factors to be considered.
--10 feet away and you're using a rifle? Sure.
--1000 feet away and you're using a pistol? Not so much.

Personally, I'd much rather the GM wing it than trying to create a formula that incorporates target size, distance, and weapon used.

Exactly. This is how I've always done it at my table and it's worked great for years.

[Nekira Sudacne]

From a designers perspective this rules are counter-intuitive to the purpose of called shots, they provide to many penalties, and they punish those who try to use them.

Out of curiosity, what do you think the purpose of called shots is? No, i'm not trying to poke fun or be Zen, I have a hunch it may be a difference of expectations. If you think called shots serve one game purpose and Akashic another, then that would explain how you two are talking past each-other.

[SittingBull]

And this is why I have hit location tables honestly, and to help show when cover stops an attack.

[Nekira Sudacne]

From a designers perspective this rules are counter-intuitive to the purpose of called shots, they provide to many penalties, and they punish those who try to use them.

Out of curiosity, what do you think the purpose of called shots is? No, i'm not trying to poke fun or be Zen, I have a hunch it may be a difference of expectations. If you think called shots serve one game purpose and Akashic another, then that would explain how you two are talking past each-other.

Called shots are supposed to be used to target specific areas, presumably to get some kind of tactical advantage. At this point however, I can't think of any situations where there is actually an advantage to using called shots.

Ah. See, that's never how I saw them. To me, Called shots are only there to exploit a specific weakness (trying to stake a vampire), or to disable someone nonlethally ("I shoot his kneecaps out"). In one case, your going for a legimate one-move victory, in the other, your deliberatly choosing the suboptmial choice for whatever reason. both situations SHOULD be harder than just beating them into submission.

In short, your players see that called shots are discouraged for casual use except in very specific situations--and your right. the difference is to some people (including the game designer) that's a FEATURE, not a bug. Called shots should be a rare event.

That was more or less what I figured the difference was. Called shots arn't there for tactical advantage, they're there for edge cases.

[eliakon]

From a designers perspective this rules are counter-intuitive to the purpose of called shots, they provide to many penalties, and they punish those who try to use them.

Out of curiosity, what do you think the purpose of called shots is? No, i'm not trying to poke fun or be Zen, I have a hunch it may be a difference of expectations. If you think called shots serve one game purpose and Akashic another, then that would explain how you two are talking past each-other.

Called shots are supposed to be used to target specific areas, presumably to get some kind of tactical advantage. At this point however, I can't think of any situations where there is actually an advantage to using called shots.

Ah. See, that's never how I saw them. To me, Called shots are only there to exploit a specific weakness (trying to stake a vampire), or to disable someone nonlethally ("I shoot his kneecaps out"). In one case, your going for a legimate one-move victory, in the other, your deliberatly choosing the suboptmial choice for whatever reason. both situations SHOULD be harder than just beating them into submission.

In short, your players see that called shots are discouraged for casual use except in very specific situations--and your right. the difference is to some people (including the game designer) that's a FEATURE, not a bug. Called shots should be a rare event.

That was more or less what I figured the difference was. Called shots arn't there for tactical advantage, they're there for edge cases.

But the fact that they are interruptible makes them virtually impossible to use in both of those situations. It's not just harder, it's completely unusable.

I would say that being Interuptable is a fine feature since they can produce one hit kills. Remember its not like you have a sign saying 'making called shot' floating above your head, so the enemey will have to choose who to attack based on in game knowledge (presumably), if your trying to use a called shot in a one on one battle your already in trouble I would think. but thats just my two cents worth.

[Nekira Sudacne]

From a designers perspective this rules are counter-intuitive to the purpose of called shots, they provide to many penalties, and they punish those who try to use them.

Out of curiosity, what do you think the purpose of called shots is? No, i'm not trying to poke fun or be Zen, I have a hunch it may be a difference of expectations. If you think called shots serve one game purpose and Akashic another, then that would explain how you two are talking past each-other.

Called shots are supposed to be used to target specific areas, presumably to get some kind of tactical advantage. At this point however, I can't think of any situations where there is actually an advantage to using called shots.

Ah. See, that's never how I saw them. To me, Called shots are only there to exploit a specific weakness (trying to stake a vampire), or to disable someone nonlethally ("I shoot his kneecaps out"). In one case, your going for a legimate one-move victory, in the other, your deliberatly choosing the suboptmial choice for whatever reason. both situations SHOULD be harder than just beating them into submission.

In short, your players see that called shots are discouraged for casual use except in very specific situations--and your right. the difference is to some people (including the game designer) that's a FEATURE, not a bug. Called shots should be a rare event.

That was more or less what I figured the difference was. Called shots arn't there for tactical advantage, they're there for edge cases.

But the fact that they are interruptible makes them virtually impossible to use in both of those situations. It's not just harder, it's completely unusable.

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.

[SittingBull]

Ah. See, that's never how I saw them. To me, Called shots are only there to exploit a specific weakness (trying to stake a vampire), or to disable someone nonlethally ("I shoot his kneecaps out"). In one case, your going for a legimate one-move victory, in the other, your deliberatly choosing the suboptmial choice for whatever reason. both situations SHOULD be harder than just beating them into submission.



Wow I never thought of it that way.

[SittingBull]

Or make aiming cost nothing but then make firing wild have something extra, like limited auto-dodge.

[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."

[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.

[Killer Cyborg]

I would say that being Interuptable is a fine feature since they can produce one hit kills. Remember its not like you have a sign saying 'making called shot' floating above your head, so the enemey will have to choose who to attack based on in game knowledge (presumably), if your trying to use a called shot in a one on one battle your already in trouble I would think. but thats just my two cents worth.

The only instant kills you can get out of it are only after including two separate sets of optional rules, and even then it's only POSSIBLE (not guaranteed) and you have to be at point blank range.

If a SDC character has MDC armor, but doesn't have a helmet, they can be one-shot-killed with a Called Shot fairly easily.
If they have a helmet, but the helmet isn't strong enough to absorb the incoming damage from a headshot (even with the GI-Joe Rule), then you can one-shot-kill pretty easily with a Called Shot.
In fact, if you read Dinosaur Swamps, you can use Called Shots to one-shot-kill even large MDC creatures such as dinosaurs.
All without house rules.

[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.

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.

Except the book dosn't say that. just because there's precident for spellcasting being interupted dosn't mean all multi-attack actions are interupted, nor is any mention of such given to aimed shots. That's completely a houserule to say that they can be interupted, and it makes little sense to say "the rules are broken" and then say "Well it's only my houserule that makes it broken"

I agree, aimed shots being interuptable would make called shots nigh useless. which is why the book dosn't say they can be interupted.

[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. 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.