Firing Prone In Combat

[Killer Cyborg]

Scenario:
You're the GM.
A Player Character is facing off against an NPC. Each are armed with rifles, and have the appropriate WP for their weapon. The terrain is a flat, infinite, featureless plain.
The two combatants are roughly 500' apart.
The PC wins initiative, and uses his attack/action to drop into a prone firing position, lying flat on his belly.
The NPC's init comes up, and he fires at the PC.

How do you handle this kind of situation?
-Do you know of any place where firing at a prone target is covered specifically by the rules?
-With the PC presenting a low-profile, what strike penalties would you apply, if any?
-With the PC's belly against the ground, and back facing only the open sky, would you apply the rules for Cover, and require a Called Shot to strike the PC?
-Would you handle this situation another way?

[The Beast]

Well there are unofficial rules for ground fighting in Rifter 3. However they are for people in melee combat and aren't appropriate in this scenario.

I'm guessing Person A is in the prone, unsupported firing position, so therefore I wouldn't give him any additional strike bonuses.

I'm leaning toward Person B needing to make called shots against A, due to both the profile change and distance. I'm not sure if B would have a penalty at this point, and I'm also not sure at what point B no longer needs to make called shots against A.

Any successful strikes on A are going to be in the head, arms, and shoulders, possibly the legs as well if they're kicked out to the sides. The Modern Weapons book is where I would go to for strikes on those locations.

[ShadowLogan]

1. I don't know of any place in the rules that covers prone targets specifically. (and technically positioning to minimize profile)
2. Given the profile presented, I would apply a strike penalty as you are now firing on a smaller (than normal) target. That is for a general attack, though if you take time to AIM it would reduce/negate the strike penalty.
3. No I would not treat it as Cover since they are not technically behind anything (based on the scenario as presented), now if they N/PC dug a fox hole I would probably consider that cover

[The Beast]

Oh I will also add that A isn't going to be able to dodge, or will have a severe penalty due to the only move A could make is to roll. I will also add that B's called shots will completely miss A if B doesn't roll 12 or higher. If you include penalties to B's strike rolls I'd tack them onto the 12 for called shots.

[shadrak]

At 500', I would apply the following requirements:

NPC must make a called shot against a smaller-than-man-sized target for a penalty of about -4. The PC moved during this time, so I would apply another -1 penalty for the first shot only for a total of a -5 penalty to hit with a called shot. If the PC were able to find cover while prone, I would increase this penalty to -6 or -8 depending on the type of cover.

Thus, the NPC must take two attacks and must roll a 12+ (not counting any to-hit bonuses from optics or WP). Subsequent shots by the NPC would require an 11+ roll (not counting to-hit bonuses).

The PC's first shot would be shooting wild OR the PC could burn 1 action to avoid the shooting wild penalty. That first shot by the PC could be a wild burst in which case the PC would need 13+ (1/2 WP bonuses)...

In this case, the even if the PC did not hit the NPC he would force the NPC to shoot wild unless he missed hit shot by an extreme amount.

[Killer Cyborg]

Followup question:
How often have you seen PCs or NPCs fire from a prone position in game play?

[shadrak]

Followup question:
How often have you seen PCs or NPCs fire from a prone position in game play?

If I am playing the PC or the NPC, often.

Generally, I go prone and/or seek cover, especially if combat is ranged.

A person that is shooting while under heavy fire is considered to be "shooting wild", so if I am part of a larger team that is attacking another ranged combatant, the key is to get fire superiority so that the target has to shoot wild while we are able to aim...

In Rifts, this doesn't happen often in normal adventuring--But if you read my scenarios it is more common.

See my beginner mission...

It provides characters with an opportunity to isolate and destroy smaller groups of ranged combatants through maneuver and (limited) fire superiority.

[glitterboy2098]

generally unless it provides a discrete advantage, players won't do stuff like that in combat unless they are really into the RP aspect.

the fact there isn't some rules (even just quick and dirty ones) for assigning penalties for things like concealment (shooting from around a corner or over a low wall for example, or shooting into underbrush, etc) and cover (whether targets can be hit through objects, and how that effects the damage) makes it kinda tricky to keep such things consistent between groups.

[jingizu999]

I can't find an answer in the rules as written, so here is my interpretation. And it is just MY interpretation.

If a target (player or npc) goes prone, a ranged shot should come at a penalty to strike. It should only be treated as cover if they are in defilade, that is having gone prone behind cover or being shot from a low angle such that the ground itself is between shooter and target. IE, prone on a hill. A called shot is not a fitting mechanic for this situation as written. A called shot specifically refers to deliberately striking/shooting one portion of a larger target, not for shooting a small target. To use a ridiculous example, it is not a called shot to shoot a halfling standing in the open just because he's short. That's not how the called shot mechanic works. If you want to shoot a giant in the head, that's a called shot, even if hitting the giant is generally easier because of his size. Shooting a rabbit running across a field isn't a called shot, it’s just a difficult one.

As for hit locations, if the target is prone in the open likely impact locations when shot by a standing shooter are head, shoulders, lower back, and legs. Likelihood of hits to the back and legs varies with the height and distance of the shooter, and is a simple geometry problem, but they are far less likely at 500’. Since Rifts is a game that has never handled random hit locations particularly well, If using the r.a.w. I would continue to have shots hit the "main body”, just in the back instead of the front. Not very realistic, but then Rifts and realism rarely walk hand in hand. That being said, I play with a heavily modified homebrew version of the Palladium combat rules, so we use semi-random hit locations heavily weighted towards center of mass shots (stolen from another game) and a far more lethal critical hit system. That means my players focus a lot more on not being hit in the first place, rather than hoping their armor will save them.

Followup question:
How often have you seen PCs or NPCs fire from a prone position in game play?

Prone in the open? Almost never. In defilade or behind cover? Every single game. I live next to an Air Force base. 75% of my players are former military personnel, and the other 25% are either related to or working with active duty personnel. The biggest challenge I face is getting them to approach a situation in a non-tactical manner. We once did what was supposed to be a light-hearted Scooby-Doo game where the gang investigated the "haunted funhouse". Instead, while Shaggy and Scooby patrolled the perimeter, Fred and Daphne breached the front door, while Velma lobbed in a flash bang before double-tapping Mr. Caruthers in his ghost costume, freeing the hostages, and falling back to the Mystery Machine for exfil. Throw a few engineers into the mix and well planned chaos and violence are the group’s norm.

[13eowulf]

As far as I know there is no RAW for this.
So as a GM if a player came to me and asked what the outcome might be, I would work to develop something with them, then file it away in my GM tool kit for later.
However if mid session they state the do such, and then instruct me to add a penalty, or declare there is a penalty, then they are probably gonna have a bad day.

[Proseksword]

You're going to find it hard to find anywhere with 500' of natural ground that's perfectly flat. Ergo, any natural variation in the intervening surface terrain combined with presenting a less than 1' vertical profile should constitute cover, I should think.

[Shark_Force]

You're going to find it hard to find anywhere with 500' of natural ground that's perfectly flat. Ergo, any natural variation in the intervening surface terrain combined with presenting a less than 1' vertical profile should constitute cover, I should think.

well that's gonna provide cover to your target as well then. you can just put your gun over a wall that you're up against and ignore that cover, but you can't do that with a low hill that's 100 feet out; if they're having a hard time hitting you because you're blocked off, you're having a hard time hitting them because they're blocked off too, at least from "cover" that is as far away as you're describing.

(that is, of course, still going to leave situations where it might be a good idea to take cover, if your GM rules that this situation does provide it).

[Proseksword]

You're going to find it hard to find anywhere with 500' of natural ground that's perfectly flat. Ergo, any natural variation in the intervening surface terrain combined with presenting a less than 1' vertical profile should constitute cover, I should think.

well that's gonna provide cover to your target as well then.

That's going to be completely contingent on the nature of the target. If you're shooting at another prone humanoid, sure! If you're shooting at a 12m tall power armor lumbering across the countryside or a fury-beetle mounted simvan? The rolling hills probably wouldn't interfere with your shot.

[glitterboy2098]

and ig you are prone on the downslope of the hill or the up slope of the depression, you are going to have largely unobscured targeting but your opponent is going to only be able to see a small part of you. (similar to being hull down in a tank. another reason why i wish we had rules for cover.)

[The Beast]

Yeah, I'm fairly certain that KC said "The terrain is a flat, infinite, featureless plain." just so we wouldn't argue about it.

[Shark_Force]

You're going to find it hard to find anywhere with 500' of natural ground that's perfectly flat. Ergo, any natural variation in the intervening surface terrain combined with presenting a less than 1' vertical profile should constitute cover, I should think.

well that's gonna provide cover to your target as well then.

That's going to be completely contingent on the nature of the target. If you're shooting at another prone humanoid, sure! If you're shooting at a 12m tall power armor lumbering across the countryside or a fury-beetle mounted simvan? The rolling hills probably wouldn't interfere with your shot.

if the low hills aren't interfering with your shot, then it isn't interfering with their shot either, because that means they are tall enough to see over the hills, just as they are tall enough to be seen over the hills (unless for some reason their sensory organs and any appendages that might be used to manipulate a ranged weapon are located at their bottom, for some reason).

now if you're hiding just behind the crest of a hill, or at the top of a ditch on the side towards your target, sure you're getting cover and they aren't. you can easily shoot around the thing that is right next to you, while they cannot just put the muzzle of their gun beyond that same thing at 500 foot range. but if the cover is coming from something 250 feet away from both of you, then *both* of you are getting cover.

(and btw glitterboy, apparently we do have rules for cover... they're just not very specific. they basically amount to saying you have cover when you have cover, and it takes a called shot to shoot a person who is in cover. there are no specifics on penalties to hit if you're in exceptionally good cover or anything like that, but then there are no penalties listed for, say, trying to shoot a mouse as compared to trying to shoot a human, nor are their bonuses for trying to shoot a 50 foot tall robot, so... pretty much, your GM can make up any number they feel like, if they feel like it, as a penalty).

[Killer Cyborg]

Yeah, I'm fairly certain that KC said "The terrain is a flat, infinite, featureless plain." just so we wouldn't argue about it.

As far as the original scenario goes, yes. But I don't mind people discussing alternate scenarios as examples of how/why they would handle things.

[TatteredBlackCape]

Well, if the target is prone the penalty to strike would have to at least be the same as a called strike on the head, which would be the target size, plus any additional penalty you think is necessary considering distance.

[shadrak]

I can't find an answer in the rules as written, so here is my interpretation. And it is just MY interpretation.

If a target (player or npc) goes prone, a ranged shot should come at a penalty to strike. It should only be treated as cover if they are in defilade, that is having gone prone behind cover or being shot from a low angle such that the ground itself is between shooter and target. IE, prone on a hill. A called shot is not a fitting mechanic for this situation as written. A called shot specifically refers to deliberately striking/shooting one portion of a larger target, not for shooting a small target. To use a ridiculous example, it is not a called shot to shoot a halfling standing in the open just because he's short. That's not how the called shot mechanic works. If you want to shoot a giant in the head, that's a called shot, even if hitting the giant is generally easier because of his size. Shooting a rabbit running across a field isn't a called shot, it’s just a difficult one.

As for hit locations, if the target is prone in the open likely impact locations when shot by a standing shooter are head, shoulders, lower back, and legs. Likelihood of hits to the back and legs varies with the height and distance of the shooter, and is a simple geometry problem, but they are far less likely at 500’. Since Rifts is a game that has never handled random hit locations particularly well, If using the r.a.w. I would continue to have shots hit the "main body”, just in the back instead of the front. Not very realistic, but then Rifts and realism rarely walk hand in hand. That being said, I play with a heavily modified homebrew version of the Palladium combat rules, so we use semi-random hit locations heavily weighted towards center of mass shots (stolen from another game) and a far more lethal critical hit system. That means my players focus a lot more on not being hit in the first place, rather than hoping their armor will save them.

Followup question:
How often have you seen PCs or NPCs fire from a prone position in game play?

Prone in the open? Almost never. In defilade or behind cover? Every single game. I live next to an Air Force base. 75% of my players are former military personnel, and the other 25% are either related to or working with active duty personnel. The biggest challenge I face is getting them to approach a situation in a non-tactical manner. We once did what was supposed to be a light-hearted Scooby-Doo game where the gang investigated the "haunted funhouse". Instead, while Shaggy and Scooby patrolled the perimeter, Fred and Daphne breached the front door, while Velma lobbed in a flash bang before double-tapping Mr. Caruthers in his ghost costume, freeing the hostages, and falling back to the Mystery Machine for exfil. Throw a few engineers into the mix and well planned chaos and violence are the group’s norm.

I would argue it would have to be a called shot to hit head/shoulders/arms. By your own definition, that would be a called shot...

I don't see why you wouldn't go prone in the open unless you were attempting to maneuver on the target or attempting to break contact. If that doesn't work in the way you play your RPGs, so be it, but I am considerably more stable in the prone than standing and I am a much smaller target so that carries through in my RPGs.

[Proseksword]

Yeah, I'm fairly certain that KC said "The terrain is a flat, infinite, featureless plain." just so we wouldn't argue about it.

As far as the original scenario goes, yes. But I don't mind people discussing alternate scenarios as examples of how/why they would handle things.

I'm not sure where such a situation would actually occur, but I'd say they'd gain no benefit - RIFTs does not provide bonuses or penalties to hit for main body target size. Faeries gain no natural defense bonus due to their size, only a dodge bonus. Why should a prone person?

[Killer Cyborg]

Yeah, I'm fairly certain that KC said "The terrain is a flat, infinite, featureless plain." just so we wouldn't argue about it.

As far as the original scenario goes, yes. But I don't mind people discussing alternate scenarios as examples of how/why they would handle things.

I'm not sure where such a situation would actually occur, but I'd say they'd gain no benefit - RIFTs does not provide bonuses or penalties to hit for main body target size. Faeries gain no natural defense bonus due to their size, only a dodge bonus. Why should a prone person?

So, basically as long as there’s arguable a fairy-sized part of the torso exposed, you wouldn’t see a need for strike penalties or a Called Shot?

[Proseksword]

Yeah, I'm fairly certain that KC said "The terrain is a flat, infinite, featureless plain." just so we wouldn't argue about it.

As far as the original scenario goes, yes. But I don't mind people discussing alternate scenarios as examples of how/why they would handle things.

I'm not sure where such a situation would actually occur, but I'd say they'd gain no benefit - RIFTs does not provide bonuses or penalties to hit for main body target size. Faeries gain no natural defense bonus due to their size, only a dodge bonus. Why should a prone person?

So, basically as long as there’s arguable a fairy-sized part of the torso exposed, you wouldn’t see a need for strike penalties or a Called Shot?

Sure. The need for the called shot is to avoid the nearby intervening material, not to hit the overall area of the target. A prone man at 200 ft. & a standing man at 1200 ft. should present roughly the same target area, yet neither carry a to-hit penalty.

[Shark_Force]

Yeah, I'm fairly certain that KC said "The terrain is a flat, infinite, featureless plain." just so we wouldn't argue about it.

As far as the original scenario goes, yes. But I don't mind people discussing alternate scenarios as examples of how/why they would handle things.

I'm not sure where such a situation would actually occur, but I'd say they'd gain no benefit - RIFTs does not provide bonuses or penalties to hit for main body target size. Faeries gain no natural defense bonus due to their size, only a dodge bonus. Why should a prone person?

So, basically as long as there’s arguable a fairy-sized part of the torso exposed, you wouldn’t see a need for strike penalties or a Called Shot?

Sure. The need for the called shot is to avoid the nearby intervening material, not to hit the overall area of the target. A prone man at 200 ft. & a standing man at 1200 ft. should present roughly the same target area, yet neither carry a to-hit penalty.

or, alternately, to be consistent if you apply a penalty to hit a prone man you should also apply penalties to hit other various small targets including targets at longer ranges that are within effective weapon range (but allow range penalties to be reduced with a scope). and probably apply a bonus to hit larger targets.

[Prysus]

Scenario:
You're the GM.
A Player Character is facing off against an NPC. Each are armed with rifles, and have the appropriate WP for their weapon. The terrain is a flat, infinite, featureless plain.
The two combatants are roughly 500' apart.
The PC wins initiative, and uses his attack/action to drop into a prone firing position, lying flat on his belly.
The NPC's init comes up, and he fires at the PC.

How do you handle this kind of situation?

Greetings and Salutations. To answer this question, see the rest of my post.

-Do you know of any place where firing at a prone target is covered specifically by the rules?

None that I'm aware of.

-With the PC presenting a low-profile, what strike penalties would you apply, if any?

NPC: I'd apply a -3 or -4 penalty to strike. My general rule is the is a -4 penalty and arms/handheld weapons are -3 to strike (this is based upon penalties listed in RWB5: Triax, but they're for a particular item and not listed as general rules). The head would still be visible (-4), but so would some shoulders and any weapon they're aiming (so maybe only a -3). Depends on how I was feeling and why they were in that combat scenario in the first place.
Prone PC: No penalties to strike, but cannot dodge (at 500', they'd have no penalties to dodge otherwise, though they could only use P.P. and O.C.C. bonuses per RUE).

-With the PC's belly against the ground, and back facing only the open sky, would you apply the rules for Cover, and require a Called Shot to strike the PC?

Definitely not applying cover rules. The ground isn't actually the cover in this scenario. The ground is NOT what would be stopping the bullet (or energy blast, etc.). The character is presenting a smaller profile, but let's put this scenario a different way. If you lie down right at my feet and I shoot at your main body, will the ground deflect the bullet or will you get shot in the back? Distance and a smaller profile are your benefits here, not cover. Any shots would hit a shoulder or back. Maybe not the most realistic, but will keep the game moving (see above for the Strike penalties).

If the PC pushed for "cover" rules, I'd allow it though. Then allow the NPC to shoot without a Called Shot. If the NPC hits, it would be an automatic head shot. This sounds harsh at first (maybe even after), but the NPC did NOT target the head. The NPC targeted your main body by default. It's not his fault that you're using your head as cover for your main body. Note: I might actually just damage their rifle, if held in front of them, to be nice. This would probably depend on my mood.

-Would you handle this situation another way?

I've occasionally toyed with applying a Natural A.R. for a small or hard to hit target. Instead of representing armored skin or something like that, this just means a shot will miss. So, for example, I might apply a Natural A.R. of 12 for this situation (not sure if I would, but I might). So an 11 to strike would hit the dirt/ground near the character, but still act as a miss.

I used this logic to apply to the Natural A.R. of Faerie Folk (at least for Palladium Fantasy in the Monsters & Animals book, though they seem to lose the A.R. when they become M.D.C. in Rifts). I don't tend to think of them as armored hides, but small and flying targets that are hard to hit. But why a 12 for a human, isn't that a little high? True, Faerie Folk tend to only have an A.R. of 6 (maybe higher like a 9), but since Ranged Attacks (in Rifts) also require a 8 or higher to hit, I'm using the A.R. as a template (modifier to hit effectively, since otherwise a Natural A.R. of 6 would be meaningless in ranged combat). Also, I believe it matches the old Called Shot rules (1 action, but a 12 or higher to hit). Strike penalties above may or may not be in addition to this, probably largely dependent on why the PC was in this situation (they're own stupidity? One or the other. But if I just arbitrarily put them in that position? Then I'll give them that extra latitude).

Anyways, just my thoughts on the matter. Hope they're at least interesting. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[Killer Cyborg]

If the PC pushed for "cover" rules, I'd allow it though. Then allow the NPC to shoot without a Called Shot. If the NPC hits, it would be an automatic head shot. This sounds harsh at first (maybe even after), but the NPC did NOT target the head. The NPC targeted your main body by default. It's not his fault that you're using your head as cover for your main body. Note: I might actually just damage their rifle, if held in front of them, to be nice. This would probably depend on my mood.

That is an interesting take on things!

[TeeAychEeMarchHare]

Questions like this illustrate perfectly why I may use Palladium's settings, but their mechanics go directly in the bin. Same goes for D&D/Pathfinder.

[Warshield73]

Questions like this illustrate perfectly why I may use Palladium's settings, but their mechanics go directly in the bin. Same goes for D&D/Pathfinder.

Which system do you use for your game mechanics? I ask because I have only played a few other systems besides PB and they all have there problems and a don't think I have ever seen one specifically mention laying prone.

I have always agreed that PBs system, combat and otherwise, is incomplete but I have never found an issue that I couldn't easily house rule. My group came up with a system for firing from cover, including laying prone, since we played 1st edition Southern Cross back in '89. It was really important with the use of arm shields and using downed mecha as cover. I think with any system there just has to be an understanding that not everything will be covered in the rules (although I will admit I would like PB to try harder to cover a few more things in theirs) and that some things will need to be house ruled.

[TeeAychEeMarchHare]

Questions like this illustrate perfectly why I may use Palladium's settings, but their mechanics go directly in the bin. Same goes for D&D/Pathfinder.

Which system do you use for your game mechanics? I ask because I have only played a few other systems besides PB and they all have there problems and a don't think I have ever seen one specifically mention laying prone.

I have always agreed that PBs system, combat and otherwise, is incomplete but I have never found an issue that I couldn't easily house rule. My group came up with a system for firing from cover, including laying prone, since we played 1st edition Southern Cross back in '89. It was really important with the use of arm shields and using downed mecha as cover. I think with any system there just has to be an understanding that not everything will be covered in the rules (although I will admit I would like PB to try harder to cover a few more things in theirs) and that some things will need to be house ruled.

I haven't done anything with Rifts since 1997, but if you don't mind crunch I like the Reflex System that Twilight: 2013 uses. It seems pretty daunting at first but once you learn it it's pretty easy IMO. I'd love to play Rifts converted to that system. I'd even be willing to GM it, and for me that's saying something cuz I burned out almost two decades ago and I just want to play instead of being GM now.

I've considered using the setting for a Genesys game but it hasn't gone past the consideration stage.

I've gotten to the point that I really dislike level-based systems. There are a few reasons for that, the mechanics are just one of them.

[Proseksword]

Questions like this illustrate perfectly why I may use Palladium's settings, but their mechanics go directly in the bin. Same goes for D&D/Pathfinder.

RPGs don't need hard and fast rules - the GM is God, & what they say goes. I like that the Palladium system is fast & loose. When something arises we're not sure about, I make a ruling as GM & we roll on. If something comes up where I don't like the rule, I toss it, devise something else & roll on. The last thing I need at my table is more reasons to reference a table or encourage rules-lawyering.....

[TeeAychEeMarchHare]

Questions like this illustrate perfectly why I may use Palladium's settings, but their mechanics go directly in the bin. Same goes for D&D/Pathfinder.

RPGs don't need hard and fast rules - the GM is God, & what they say goes. I like that the Palladium system is fast & loose. When something arises we're not sure about, I make a ruling as GM & we roll on. If something comes up where I don't like the rule, I toss it, devise something else & roll on. The last thing I need at my table is more reasons to reference a table or encourage rules-lawyering.....

Agreed, for the most part, but lets face it, it doesn't always work that way. A lot depends on who is at the table. With some players.....well...

And the less work *I* have to do with coming up with mechanics, the better. If I wanted to play test rules, I'd be a play tester. If I can get away with making a minor tweaks here or there, great. I don't want to have to come up with enough house rules to fill a notebook.

To each their own though. I've known people who absolutely loved 1st Edition D&D. I think those people are masochists.

[Warshield73]

I haven't done anything with Rifts since 1997, but if you don't mind crunch I like the Reflex System that Twilight: 2013 uses. It seems pretty daunting at first but once you learn it it's pretty easy IMO. I'd love to play Rifts converted to that system. I'd even be willing to GM it, and for me that's saying something cuz I burned out almost two decades ago and I just want to play instead of being GM now.

I've considered using the setting for a Genesys game but it hasn't gone past the consideration stage.

I've gotten to the point that I really dislike level-based systems. There are a few reasons for that, the mechanics are just one of them.

I vaguely recall Reflex System but I'm not sure if what I'm remembering is what your talking about.

The only other RPGs I played regularly back when I was in HS, besides PB, were TSRs Star Frontiers and the West End Star Wars. Both of those used skill points instead of levels and I really didn't like them that much. People ended up being great pilots and gun fighters but still unable to tie their shoes after months of playing. I house rule a small thing with what I call character points where the character can get additional skills or apply bonuses to one or two skills to improve them. I found it to be best of both worlds.

[Blue_Lion]

If some one is laying flat on a featureless teraine a person standing could still shoot the person laying down in the legs or but from 500' away. Think about it some laying down on a road 500 feet away you would see their legs and back if you are standing. (If both sides where prone they would both have a reduced profile)
Tactically laying prone out in the open is still a easy target.(I lost track of the number of times I have seen opfor destroy people laying out in the open.)
Prone is a good tactical move when combined with terrain features to help mask your body.

However laying prone allows for greater stability, it could allow the shooter in the prone to not shoot wild for being under fire. So you drop prone lay down fire to suppress the other target then move to a position of greater cover, but to not just sit out the open and expect to not get shot.

[Hotrod]

I live next to an Air Force base. 75% of my players are former military personnel, and the other 25% are either related to or working with active duty personnel. The biggest challenge I face is getting them to approach a situation in a non-tactical manner. We once did what was supposed to be a light-hearted Scooby-Doo game where the gang investigated the "haunted funhouse". Instead, while Shaggy and Scooby patrolled the perimeter, Fred and Daphne breached the front door, while Velma lobbed in a flash bang before double-tapping Mr. Caruthers in his ghost costume, freeing the hostages, and falling back to the Mystery Machine for exfil. Throw a few engineers into the mix and well planned chaos and violence are the group’s norm.

Thanks for that, I needed a good laugh (I live next to a base, too).

[Hotrod]

Palladium's combat system was built for a fantasy RPG setting, and even with the modifications to include modern combat, the focus seems to be more cinematic, dynamic, and fun than practical. Shooting enemies from the prone, while quite effective in real life, isn't cinematic, dynamic, or fun.

It's also very difficult to simulate. Let's say you go down in the prone. Unless you're on a very flat area or a slope, there are likely to be some obstructions between you and an enemy 500 feet away. Lie down in a random spot and see how far you can see a person-sized feature; it's quite often less than the football field and change presented in the OP, because low rises and bumps here and there often get in the way. This is a crappy form of cover; your enemy can't see or hit you, but you can't see or shoot your enemy. Even if you're on very flat ground, unless it's sand, mowed grass, or salt flats, there's likely to be tall grass, which is likely to conceal you from your enemy and vice-versa either completely (you're now firing blind) or partially (penalties to strike).

Movement in the prone is slow, but it's also incredibly important both for avoiding enemy fire and getting to a more advantageous position. This is generally done in a couple of ways: jumping up and sprinting for a few seconds, or crawling. Crawling might help you avoid being seen/shot, but it's slow, and you really can't shoot while crawling, even wild. Sprinting exposes you, but it's fast, and you can shoot enemies as you run (a wild shot). However, there really isn't a mechanic for these short sprints or crawling in the game.

Then there's the flipside to firing from the prone: you can use the ground to steady your aim. This is very helpful, and can be effectively simulated by a bonus to strike. However, it's also somewhat limited, as you can't just turn and shoot as quickly as someone on their feet, and your effective firing arc is fairly limited.

Capturing all this nuance into a game system is problematic, and it can easily become counterproductive because just as in real life, going into the prone is likely to slow and bog down combat, making your character live longer while accomplishing tasks slower.

[Blue_Lion]

Palladium's combat system was built for a fantasy RPG setting, and even with the modifications to include modern combat, the focus seems to be more cinematic, dynamic, and fun than practical. Shooting enemies from the prone, while quite effective in real life, isn't cinematic, dynamic, or fun.

It's also very difficult to simulate. Let's say you go down in the prone. Unless you're on a very flat area or a slope, there are likely to be some obstructions between you and an enemy 500 feet away. Lie down in a random spot and see how far you can see a person-sized feature; it's quite often less than the football field and change presented in the OP, because low rises and bumps here and there often get in the way. This is a crappy form of cover; your enemy can't see or hit you, but you can't see or shoot your enemy. Even if you're on very flat ground, unless it's sand, mowed grass, or salt flats, there's likely to be tall grass, which is likely to conceal you from your enemy and vice-versa either completely (you're now firing blind) or partially (penalties to strike).

Movement in the prone is slow, but it's also incredibly important both for avoiding enemy fire and getting to a more advantageous position. This is generally done in a couple of ways: jumping up and sprinting for a few seconds, or crawling. Crawling might help you avoid being seen/shot, but it's slow, and you really can't shoot while crawling, even wild. Sprinting exposes you, but it's fast, and you can shoot enemies as you run (a wild shot). However, there really isn't a mechanic for these short sprints or crawling in the game.

Then there's the flipside to firing from the prone: you can use the ground to steady your aim. This is very helpful, and can be effectively simulated by a bonus to strike. However, it's also somewhat limited, as you can't just turn and shoot as quickly as someone on their feet, and your effective firing arc is fairly limited.

Capturing all this nuance into a game system is problematic, and it can easily become counterproductive because just as in real life, going into the prone is likely to slow and bog down combat, making your character live longer while accomplishing tasks slower.

The scenario presented was a flat featureless terrain. It would be like spotting some one in laying down on a runway of an airport, or the middle of a foot ball field. With no terrain feature there is a clear line of sight to the target.

So if the main body is the largest area of the target if the only thing you saw of the target was the head of a 50' tall giant robot over the top of a building would that be a called shot?

[eliakon]

Palladium's combat system was built for a fantasy RPG setting, and even with the modifications to include modern combat, the focus seems to be more cinematic, dynamic, and fun than practical. Shooting enemies from the prone, while quite effective in real life, isn't cinematic, dynamic, or fun.

It's also very difficult to simulate. Let's say you go down in the prone. Unless you're on a very flat area or a slope, there are likely to be some obstructions between you and an enemy 500 feet away. Lie down in a random spot and see how far you can see a person-sized feature; it's quite often less than the football field and change presented in the OP, because low rises and bumps here and there often get in the way. This is a crappy form of cover; your enemy can't see or hit you, but you can't see or shoot your enemy. Even if you're on very flat ground, unless it's sand, mowed grass, or salt flats, there's likely to be tall grass, which is likely to conceal you from your enemy and vice-versa either completely (you're now firing blind) or partially (penalties to strike).

Movement in the prone is slow, but it's also incredibly important both for avoiding enemy fire and getting to a more advantageous position. This is generally done in a couple of ways: jumping up and sprinting for a few seconds, or crawling. Crawling might help you avoid being seen/shot, but it's slow, and you really can't shoot while crawling, even wild. Sprinting exposes you, but it's fast, and you can shoot enemies as you run (a wild shot). However, there really isn't a mechanic for these short sprints or crawling in the game.

Then there's the flipside to firing from the prone: you can use the ground to steady your aim. This is very helpful, and can be effectively simulated by a bonus to strike. However, it's also somewhat limited, as you can't just turn and shoot as quickly as someone on their feet, and your effective firing arc is fairly limited.

Capturing all this nuance into a game system is problematic, and it can easily become counterproductive because just as in real life, going into the prone is likely to slow and bog down combat, making your character live longer while accomplishing tasks slower.

The scenario presented was a flat featureless terrain. It would be like spotting some one in laying down on a runway of an airport, or the middle of a foot ball field. With no terrain feature there is a clear line of sight to the target.

So if the main body is the largest area of the target if the only thing you saw of the target was the head of a 50' tall giant robot over the top of a building would that be a called shot?

Yep. Any shot at a target behind cover is a called shot. And a four story building is cover to a 50' robot

Likewise any shot at a target that is not aimed at a specific hit location, and is not protected by cover... is not a called shot.

I would also repeat the previously mentioned fact that there is no to hit penalty for shooting a pixie... which is FAR smaller a target than a person lying on the ground.
Now a person can make a wholesale revision of the combat rules and include some sort of 'size modifier' or the like... but that would be so far into house rules as to be basically edging into a home brew system.

[Blue_Lion]

If the PC pushed for "cover" rules, I'd allow it though. Then allow the NPC to shoot without a Called Shot. If the NPC hits, it would be an automatic head shot. This sounds harsh at first (maybe even after), but the NPC did NOT target the head. The NPC targeted your main body by default. It's not his fault that you're using your head as cover for your main body. Note: I might actually just damage their rifle, if held in front of them, to be nice. This would probably depend on my mood.

That is an interesting take on things!

Do they not sort of have back door cover rules in rifts merc. They have at least two sceneros where people use cover. 1 they are hiding behind sand bags and you have to either deplet the SDC of the sand bags or make a called shot. (so it shows hiding behind something you have to first break what they are behind.) The other is using large rocks as cover but works the same.

Cover does require you have something to hide behind just laying down does not provide cover.

[Alrik Vas]

Give them -2 (aiming overcomes it), call it a day. I understand the need to discuss, but ultimately you have to look at 2 factors.

1. The player is taking an action with their character to improve their survival chances. While not completely within the rules, they are making an effort that makes sense on a lot of levels. As a GM we should try to support our PC's when they think in this way instead of "shoot, dodge, simultaneous attack because i have more MDC"

2. The penalty equals the benefit of aiming, which costs an action, which generally does negate the use of most tricks like this, as it's not real cover anyway. They could throw a grenade and there'd be no penalty, for instance.

[Blue_Lion]

Give them -2 (aiming overcomes it), call it a day. I understand the need to discuss, but ultimately you have to look at 2 factors.

1. The player is taking an action with their character to improve their survival chances. While not completely within the rules, they are making an effort that makes sense on a lot of levels. As a GM we should try to support our PC's when they think in this way instead of "shoot, dodge, simultaneous attack because i have more MDC"

2. The penalty equals the benefit of aiming, which costs an action, which generally does negate the use of most tricks like this, as it's not real cover anyway. They could throw a grenade and there'd be no penalty, for instance.

How does laying down out in the open to reduce chance of being killed. They are clearly visible on a open flat open terrain. If you lay down out in the open and the other person is standing he can clearly see your legs and back. So you are not a smaller target, but it would be harder to dodge. It would make you more stable of a shooter, but it will not make you harder to shoot.

I have exerince as miltiary instructor, and even acted as opfor, I can tell you shooting people going prone out in the open is really easy. Attacking a squad that lays down in the middle of road or field is like shooting fish in a barrel. You can still shoot them in the sides or back.

[shadrak]

Give them -2 (aiming overcomes it), call it a day. I understand the need to discuss, but ultimately you have to look at 2 factors.

1. The player is taking an action with their character to improve their survival chances. While not completely within the rules, they are making an effort that makes sense on a lot of levels. As a GM we should try to support our PC's when they think in this way instead of "shoot, dodge, simultaneous attack because i have more MDC"

2. The penalty equals the benefit of aiming, which costs an action, which generally does negate the use of most tricks like this, as it's not real cover anyway. They could throw a grenade and there'd be no penalty, for instance.

How does laying down out in the open to reduce chance of being killed. They are clearly visible on a open flat open terrain. If you lay down out in the open and the other person is standing he can clearly see your legs and back. So you are not a smaller target, but it would be harder to dodge. It would make you more stable of a shooter, but it will not make you harder to shoot.

I have exerince as miltiary instructor, and even acted as opfor, I can tell you shooting people going prone out in the open is really easy. Attacking a squad that lays down in the middle of road or field is like shooting fish in a barrel. You can still shoot them in the sides or back.

I have experience as a military instructor and as OPFOR as well...

if you lay down in the road, you are going to die...because you are in the open and you are not moving.

If you are in a field of grass then going prone can provide a degree of concealment.

Additionally, the cross sectional area of your profile should be reduced if you are at ranges beyond 150 meters. A 6' tall man standing 150 meters away is a LARGER target than a 6' man laying on the ground 150 meters away.

[Blue_Lion]

Give them -2 (aiming overcomes it), call it a day. I understand the need to discuss, but ultimately you have to look at 2 factors.

1. The player is taking an action with their character to improve their survival chances. While not completely within the rules, they are making an effort that makes sense on a lot of levels. As a GM we should try to support our PC's when they think in this way instead of "shoot, dodge, simultaneous attack because i have more MDC"

2. The penalty equals the benefit of aiming, which costs an action, which generally does negate the use of most tricks like this, as it's not real cover anyway. They could throw a grenade and there'd be no penalty, for instance.

How does laying down out in the open to reduce chance of being killed. They are clearly visible on a open flat open terrain. If you lay down out in the open and the other person is standing he can clearly see your legs and back. So you are not a smaller target, but it would be harder to dodge. It would make you more stable of a shooter, but it will not make you harder to shoot.

I have exerince as miltiary instructor, and even acted as opfor, I can tell you shooting people going prone out in the open is really easy. Attacking a squad that lays down in the middle of road or field is like shooting fish in a barrel. You can still shoot them in the sides or back.

I have experience as a military instructor and as OPFOR as well...

if you lay down in the road, you are going to die...because you are in the open and you are not moving.

If you are in a field of grass then going prone can provide a degree of concealment.

Additionally, the cross sectional area of your profile should be reduced if you are at ranges beyond 150 meters. A 6' tall man standing 150 meters away is a LARGER target than a 6' man laying on the ground 150 meters away.

Vertically yes but it adds to the horizonal profile. You just trade a vierticle profile for a horizonal one. The whole body is still visible when laying down. When some one lays down in the open you still see the legs and back at 150m. It is a 3d world not 2d if both people are laying down at the same elevation facing each other then the head and shoulders would be the only part visible but it one person has any height on the other he can see the whole body.

So the 6' person standing can shoot the person laying down in the but, back or legs. Unless the terrain provides cover or concealment. (Think of it this way if you are on a straight flat road you can see the white line along the side even though it is all the same height. Yo can also see it past a rock on the line.)

[Alrik Vas]

except we're talking about two completely different things here.

You are applying your experience from life/job to mechanics of a game that doesn't explicitly cover the situation.

I'm applying thoughts on what might be fun and fair, which doesn't care a lick about reality when I can just narrate how it helps rather than get into nitty gritty.

It's a game, not a simulation.

[shadrak]

Give them -2 (aiming overcomes it), call it a day. I understand the need to discuss, but ultimately you have to look at 2 factors.

1. The player is taking an action with their character to improve their survival chances. While not completely within the rules, they are making an effort that makes sense on a lot of levels. As a GM we should try to support our PC's when they think in this way instead of "shoot, dodge, simultaneous attack because i have more MDC"

2. The penalty equals the benefit of aiming, which costs an action, which generally does negate the use of most tricks like this, as it's not real cover anyway. They could throw a grenade and there'd be no penalty, for instance.

How does laying down out in the open to reduce chance of being killed. They are clearly visible on a open flat open terrain. If you lay down out in the open and the other person is standing he can clearly see your legs and back. So you are not a smaller target, but it would be harder to dodge. It would make you more stable of a shooter, but it will not make you harder to shoot.

I have exerince as miltiary instructor, and even acted as opfor, I can tell you shooting people going prone out in the open is really easy. Attacking a squad that lays down in the middle of road or field is like shooting fish in a barrel. You can still shoot them in the sides or back.

I have experience as a military instructor and as OPFOR as well...

if you lay down in the road, you are going to die...because you are in the open and you are not moving.

If you are in a field of grass then going prone can provide a degree of concealment.

Additionally, the cross sectional area of your profile should be reduced if you are at ranges beyond 150 meters. A 6' tall man standing 150 meters away is a LARGER target than a 6' man laying on the ground 150 meters away.

Vertically yes but it adds to the horizonal profile. You just trade a vierticle profile for a horizonal one. The whole body is still visible when laying down. When some one lays down in the open you still see the legs and back at 150m. It is a 3d world not 2d if both people are laying down at the same elevation facing each other then the head and shoulders would be the only part visible but it one person has any height on the other he can see the whole body.

So the 6' person standing can shoot the person laying down in the but, back or legs. Unless the terrain provides cover or concealment. (Think of it this way if you are on a straight flat road you can see the white line along the side even though it is all the same height. Yo can also see it past a rock on the line.)

Calculate what a 6 foot tall person can see at 150 meters...it is not the sa,e as a 6 foot tall person standing tall...not to mention that in an uncut field you are likely to have ground cover that exceeds 1 foot in height.

except we're talking about two completely different things here.

You are applying your experience from life/job to mechanics of a game that doesn't explicitly cover the situation.

I'm applying thoughts on what might be fun and fair, which doesn't care a lick about reality when I can just narrate how it helps rather than get into nitty gritty.

It's a game, not a simulation.

The point is less to indicate that experience in one realm does not mean much. And, if you paid attention to the thread, the whole point is about house rules...

So, your comment about whether this is a game or a simulation, in fact, your entire commentary, is ignorant of the point of the thread.

Of course it is a game, and some people run their ga,es more like simulations

[Blue_Lion]

The scenario is flat featureless terrain, so grass in a uncut field is irrelevant.(I did acknowledge that terrain could out side this provide cover and concealment, but that is irrelevant to this scenario.) This scenario would be like laying down in a road or parking lot tactically in this situation the only advantage would be stable firing position, not difficulty to shoot the person laying prone. (the exact range is 500' or 152.4 meters) At the range given in the scenario a person laying out in the open the person is not harder to spot because they are laying down, you would still see most the body if you are standing.(At a significantly further range that would change, unless there was optics or other vision modifiers involved.)

[Killer Cyborg]

The scenario is flat featureless terrain, so grass in a uncut field is irrelevant.(I did acknowledge that terrain could out side this provide cover and concealment, but that is irrelevant to this scenario.) This scenario would be like laying down in a road or parking lot tactically in this situation the only advantage would be stable firing position, not difficulty to shoot the person laying prone. (the exact range is 500' or 152.4 meters) At the range given in the scenario a person laying out in the open the person is not harder to spot because they are laying down, you would still see most the body if you are standing.(At a significantly further range that would change, unless there was optics or other vision modifiers involved.)

At what kind of range would it change?

[Blue_Lion]

The scenario is flat featureless terrain, so grass in a uncut field is irrelevant.(I did acknowledge that terrain could out side this provide cover and concealment, but that is irrelevant to this scenario.) This scenario would be like laying down in a road or parking lot tactically in this situation the only advantage would be stable firing position, not difficulty to shoot the person laying prone. (the exact range is 500' or 152.4 meters) At the range given in the scenario a person laying out in the open the person is not harder to spot because they are laying down, you would still see most the body if you are standing.(At a significantly further range that would change, unless there was optics or other vision modifiers involved.)

At what kind of range would it change?

My experience I would say once you get past the 250m, people start having trouble spotting man sized targets without contrast.(they still can but that is the point that people start to miss seeing some one.) Beyond 500m most people miss seeing a man sized target siting still without optics.

[Alrik Vas]

The point is less to indicate that experience in one realm does not mean much. And, if you paid attention to the thread, the whole point is about house rules...

So, your comment about whether this is a game or a simulation, in fact, your entire commentary, is ignorant of the point of the thread.

Of course it is a game, and some people run their ga,es more like simulations

KC asked for house rules. I gave my judgment on it.

BL commented on my post, I replied.

That's all that happened. That doesn't make me ignorant to the point of the OP.

[Blue_Lion]

The point is less to indicate that experience in one realm does not mean much. And, if you paid attention to the thread, the whole point is about house rules...

So, your comment about whether this is a game or a simulation, in fact, your entire commentary, is ignorant of the point of the thread.

Of course it is a game, and some people run their ga,es more like simulations

KC asked for house rules. I gave my judgment on it.

BL commented on my post, I replied.

That's all that happened. That doesn't make me ignorant to the point of the OP.

I asked a question about how you justified the bonus, your reply did not address my question.

The mechanics do not address any special bonus to laying down out in the open and that kind of matches my exerince on it. I asked how your rule was justifitified and you replied it is a game not a simulation.
(Basically I pointed out that the system as is matches my experince and your reply was it is a game not a simulation. That is amounting to saying make it less relistic.)
So your reply did not match what I was asking instead just saying house rule it to make it less relistic.

[Alrik Vas]

I asked a question about how you justified the bonus, your reply did not address my question.

The mechanics do not address any special bonus to laying down out in the open and that kind of matches my exerince on it. I asked how your rule was justifitified and you replied it is a game not a simulation.
(Basically I pointed out that the system as is matches my experince and your reply was it is a game not a simulation. That is amounting to saying make it less relistic.)
So your reply did not match what I was asking instead just saying house rule it to make it less relistic.

Yeah, but your question wasn't relevant to what I was saying. That's what I explained when I said we were talking about two different things.

When I gave an example of what I would do i wasn't talking at all about realism. So it makes little sense to give a realistic justification for something that lacks realism.

[guardiandashi]

I've been thinking about this off and on since it was posted and I believe the person would gain some advantage lying down, but it might not outweigh the negatives.

lets consider the visual aspect standing a person is essentially a box of height X width.
lying down the dimensions would actually change (and be more complicated) because it would be width X angled height X angled length
and standing angled it would be height, angled width and angled depth.

my point is the dimensions of the body have an effect on how easy the person is to see and hit. but it goes way beyond the RAW so it gets really abstract and house rule issues