Rules for Called Shots in Melee Combat?

[jburkett]

Hello, Are there some rules for called shots during melee combat? I don't recall seeing any in RUE. It doesn't make sense to me to have a called shot for melee attacks take two actions (like for ranged combat) but perhaps a roll over a certain number. Does anyone have any house rules for this that work well? Thanks!

[ShadowLogan]

There are no specific called shot rules for melee combat in Rifts AFAIK (and several other lines). The current rules are 2 attacks to make a called shot, but in the past (RMB-era) a called shot was a target number (12 IIRC) and possibly a modifier (usually negative) based on difficulty.

[Axelmania]

You can do them against Zombies in Dead Reign (and possibly with just 1 action instead of 2 like with guns) but I'm not sure about non-zombies. There are some conversion notes for using Dead Reign zombies in Rifts so this is relevant here.

[Blue_Lion]

You can do them against Zombies in Dead Reign (and possibly with just 1 action instead of 2 like with guns) but I'm not sure about non-zombies. There are some conversion notes for using Dead Reign zombies in Rifts so this is relevant here.

Setting specific tweaks to rules are not relevant, even if you can convert things from them to Rifts.

The answer is depends on if your GM whishes to apply the rules for ranged combat-modern weapon proficiencies to other parts of combat.


We know from earlier books that you can stab a vampire in heart with a wooden stake using a called shot.

The issue becomes are there official cannon mechanics for it. The wording of the text on the mechanic found on page 360 of rue does seam to exclude melee. But the general way it works takes two actions is not beyond melee combat. The wording of called shot fond on page 39 of the gmg does not exclude melee attacks, and is mechanically difrent. So it really comes down to how the GM wants to handle it.


As A gm I typically just have them spend to actions to attack with no bonuses or 3 to attack with bonuses.

[eliakon]

Either Vampire Kingdoms Revised, or the Vampire Source book discusses making called shots to the heart with stakes.
In doing so it pretty firmly establishes that one can indeed make a called shot with a melee weapon.
The rules are still the same though, two actions etc. It would be up to your GM if it is interruptible or not.

[Axelmania]

Why would the rules be the same as ranged if those rules are designed for ranged? DR and VKR don't imply any extra attacks being used.

[Blue_Lion]

Why would the rules be the same as ranged if those rules are designed for ranged? DR and VKR don't imply any extra attacks being used.

What mechanic is used?
We must start by looking for an existing mechanic that can apply.
But as I said it really comes down to how the gm wants to handle it.

[Axelmania]

Who says there needs to be a mechanic? Just call it!

[Blue_Lion]

Who says there needs to be a mechanic? Just call it!

What do me by just call it?-(Does the gm just make a call and decide weather or not it works with no roll.)
How do you know if a called shot hits?-
What are the requirements?-


Mechanics or rules are what provide the answer to these questions in game. Mechanics are game rules for how things are done/resolved.

So to get the answers you first need to see if there is an existing mechanic that covers it.
Then see if there is any mechanic that can cover the situation.

[Axelmania]

How do you know if a called shot hits?-

Roll to strike, don't get parried/dodged.

What are the requirements?-

Know the enemy exists!

An LRM on an NGR floating platform is defined as a hit location but I don't think you'd need to spend extra time to stab it with your vibro-lance, it's bigger than a person!

[Blue_Lion]

How do you know if a called shot hits?-

Roll to strike, don't get parried/dodged.

What are the requirements?-

Know the enemy exists!

An LRM on an NGR floating platform is defined as a hit location but I don't think you'd need to spend extra time to stab it with your vibro-lance, it's bigger than a person!

You think it is as easy to hit a mans arm as the main body?
what about something not bigger than a person. Like attacking the legs of a crazy, or the wings of a fairy?(seams like rules would be needed)

I know that john exist and he has an arm so I can do a called shot to hit his arm while he is invisible or on the astral plane?
How does the GM know my PC is doing a called shot?

[eliakon]

Its pretty obvious what the rules are.
The idea that "Well there are rules for called shots in the game... but we shouldn't use those, and instead we should be allowed to make all called shots with no penalty what so ever because" doesn't pass the sniff test.
The rules in Vampire Kingdom state that you must make a Called Shot. That tells us pretty clearly that you use... wait for it... the Called Shot rules. All of them. Not just pick and choose the parts that you want (aka, not just the part that lets you target a part besides the main body).

There is no precedent in the game for someone being able to simply pick and choose which parts of a rule they wish to use, and to only take the upsides of something with out having to take any of the downsides. The idea that this is possible is beyond ruleslawyering and even munchkinisim into flat out wishful thinking house rules.

[Mlp7029]

The old rule for called shots was roll a 12+ and you hit the location you called. If you rolled lower than 12 but high enough to hit you hit the main body. As a result of there being no penalty for going for a called shot everyone in our game did it every attack. Which ever rule set you want to use there needs to be some disadvantage for using a called shot beyond just requiring a higher to hit number.

[Axelmania]

what about something not bigger than a person. Like attacking the legs of a crazy, or the wings of a fairy?(seams like rules would be needed)

Are we talking about the legs on a 12ft Brodkil Crazy which might be bigger than a man?

I expect an entire fairy is smaller than a man's arm, but that doesn't make them any harder to hit in the rules.

[Blue_Lion]

what about something not bigger than a person. Like attacking the legs of a crazy, or the wings of a fairy?(seams like rules would be needed)

Are we talking about the legs on a 12ft Brodkil Crazy which might be bigger than a man?

I expect an entire fairy is smaller than a man's arm, but that doesn't make them any harder to hit in the rules.

I specified not bigger than a person, so your statement about a brokkil is clearly irrelevant attempt to build a straw man.

So you are saing there is no rule for hitting a small targets with called shots?

Hmm I seam to remember there being refences to a penalty for hittng small targets with called shots. Not just found in the mechanic but in stats for some robots and power armor.

Weather you want to admit it or not combat requires mechanics. They tell you how to do things. So to find out how to something in combat you look for a mechanic that applies.

[Axelmania]

I seam to remember there being refences to a penalty for hittng small targets with called shots. Not just found in the mechanic but in stats for some robots and power armor.

How small is small? Dwarves? Gnomes? Fairies? At what point are called shots required to hit the main body of small beings?

[Blue_Lion]

I seam to remember there being refences to a penalty for hittng small targets with called shots. Not just found in the mechanic but in stats for some robots and power armor.

How small is small? Dwarves? Gnomes? Fairies? At what point are called shots required to hit the main body of small beings?

Who said a called shot was required to hit the main body?

(It almost seams like you made an attack at me to make an augment and not actually address my point.)

[Axelmania]

You had said "something not bigger than a person". with 'person' presumably referring to 5-6 foot humans. This includes entire beings smaller than humans such as gnomes. Two gnomes are collectively smaller than 1 human.

[Blue_Lion]

You had said "something not bigger than a person". with 'person' presumably referring to 5-6 foot humans. This includes entire beings smaller than humans such as gnomes. Two gnomes are collectively smaller than 1 human.

oh so now you are cherry picking part of sentence out of context to try and change its meaning.

Look at the context.
You made a statement - that there should be no penalty for doing a called shot to the LRM on a NGR floating plat form.

I asked in reply.
You think it is as easy to hit a mans arm as his main body?
What about something not bigger than a person, like the legs of crazy or the wings of fairy?


So again who said anything about called shots to hit the main body?
Seams rather than answering questions asked or addressing points you are jousting with windmills.
(Context makes it appear you are deliberately trolling, attacking people for things that where clearly not what they are talking about.)

[Axelmania]

The point is that it should be easier to hit larger things. The LRM is bigger than a person, so it shouldn't be easier to hit a person.

[Blue_Lion]

The point is that it should be easier to hit larger things. The LRM is bigger than a person, so it shouldn't be easier to hit a person.

No I was directly asking about things smaller than main body of humans. You then counted by making false claims to mispresent what I said.


In other words I asked a question and you counted with baseless attacks.

[Killer Cyborg]

The old rule for called shots was roll a 12+ and you hit the location you called. If you rolled lower than 12 but high enough to hit you hit the main body. As a result of there being no penalty for going for a called shot everyone in our game did it every attack. Which ever rule set you want to use there needs to be some disadvantage for using a called shot beyond just requiring a higher to hit number.

The disadvantage with those rules comes into play when you're fighting an enemy that has MDC (or SDC) by location, instead of just one main pool.
If you're fighting somebody in old-style CA-2 body armor, for example, their MDC by location is:
Head-50
Arms -35 each
Legs-50 each
Main Body-50

Say your weapon does an average of 10 MD per attack.
If you just focus on stabbing a person in CA-2 in their torso, you can kill them in 5-6 attacks.
If you try to hack off one of their arms using Called Shots, you can do so in 4 successful attacks... but they have to be successful Called Shots.
For the purposes of this kind of attack, any strike that hits the main body instead of the arm (any failed Called Shot that isn't an outright miss) nets out as a miss.
Say you don't have any strike bonus, so you just have a flat 40% chance to make a Called Shot.
Well, that means that when you're trying to take out that arm, you'll hit the arm once, then probably hit the torso, then the arm again, then the torso again.
It will take you roughly 2x as many attacks before you penetrate the armor: you've effectively switched from attacking a target with a 50 MDC damage pool to attacking a target with somewhere closer to an 85 MDC damage pool.

On the other hand, there are targets like Dragons, where there's only one MDC pool.
In those cases, it doesn't matter if you fail your Called Shot, because it's still taking off the same damage pool.
But by that same token, it might not matter if you MAKE your Called Shot, because it's still taking off the same damage pool.
Back in the pre-RUE days, headshots would do x2 damage in our games... but I think that was just a house rule.
Unless there's an actual rule saying that Called Shots to vitals do extra damage, then shooting/stabbing a dragon in the head doesn't hurt it any more than an attack to the foot: it's solely* about how much damage you inflict, NOT where you inflict it to.
I know there are certain specific weapons that turn vital shots into Critical hits, but I don't recall any general rule to that effect.



*See what I did?
It's a foot pun!

[guardiandashi]

The point is that it should be easier to hit larger things. The LRM is bigger than a person, so it shouldn't be easier to hit a person.

No I was directly asking about things smaller than main body of humans. You then counted by making false claims to mispresent what I said.


In other words I asked a question and you counted with baseless attacks.

there was something that made critical locations suffer extra damage, but I want to say it was in the arms and equipment guide or similar (its the thing that has hit locations including the heart/sternum and eye/brain stuff.

so its not a house rule per say, its more of using a set of additional (optional) rules in another spot.

[The Beast]

...Unless there's an actual rule saying that Called Shots to vitals do extra damage, then shooting/stabbing a dragon in the head doesn't hurt it any more than an attack to the foot: it's solely* about how much damage you inflict, NOT where you inflict it to...

HU2, page 205, first paragraph on the page states that attacks against unprotected heads do damage direct to hit points.

Of course such a rule is useless on MDC creatures, and I'm currently unaware if such a rule existed in 1st Ed HU.

[Mack]

The old rule for called shots was roll a 12+ and you hit the location you called. If you rolled lower than 12 but high enough to hit you hit the main body. As a result of there being no penalty for going for a called shot everyone in our game did it every attack. Which ever rule set you want to use there needs to be some disadvantage for using a called shot beyond just requiring a higher to hit number.

The disadvantage with those rules comes into play when you're fighting an enemy that has MDC (or SDC) by location, instead of just one main pool.
If you're fighting somebody in old-style CA-2 body armor, for example, their MDC by location is:
Head-50
Arms -35 each
Legs-50 each
Main Body-50

Say your weapon does an average of 10 MD per attack.
If you just focus on stabbing a person in CA-2 in their torso, you can kill them in 5-6 attacks.
If you try to hack off one of their arms using Called Shots, you can do so in 4 successful attacks... but they have to be successful Called Shots.
For the purposes of this kind of attack, any strike that hits the main body instead of the arm (any failed Called Shot that isn't an outright miss) nets out as a miss.
Say you don't have any strike bonus, so you just have a flat 40% chance to make a Called Shot.
Well, that means that when you're trying to take out that arm, you'll hit the arm once, then probably hit the torso, then the arm again, then the torso again.
It will take you roughly 2x as many attacks before you penetrate the armor: you've effectively switched from attacking a target with a 50 MDC damage pool to attacking a target with somewhere closer to an 85 MDC damage pool.

On the other hand, there are targets like Dragons, where there's only one MDC pool.
In those cases, it doesn't matter if you fail your Called Shot, because it's still taking off the same damage pool.
But by that same token, it might not matter if you MAKE your Called Shot, because it's still taking off the same damage pool.
Back in the pre-RUE days, headshots would do x2 damage in our games... but I think that was just a house rule.
Unless there's an actual rule saying that Called Shots to vitals do extra damage, then shooting/stabbing a dragon in the head doesn't hurt it any more than an attack to the foot: it's solely* about how much damage you inflict, NOT where you inflict it to.
I know there are certain specific weapons that turn vital shots into Critical hits, but I don't recall any general rule to that effect.



*See what I did?
It's a foot pun!

Yep, there's really no reason to make a Called Shot unless the attacker is taking advantage of a weakness. Such as if the defender is not wearing a helmet, or only has partial armor, or the target location is a sensory organ/device. Otherwise it's not wise to burn the additional action.

[Killer Cyborg]

...Unless there's an actual rule saying that Called Shots to vitals do extra damage, then shooting/stabbing a dragon in the head doesn't hurt it any more than an attack to the foot: it's solely* about how much damage you inflict, NOT where you inflict it to...

HU2, page 205, first paragraph on the page states that attacks against unprotected heads do damage direct to hit points.

Of course such a rule is useless on MDC creatures, and I'm currently unaware if such a rule existed in 1st Ed HU.

Nice find!


Next HU character I make is gonna wear a helmet as part of his costume.

[Axelmania]

The point is that it should be easier to hit larger things. The LRM is bigger than a person, so it shouldn't be easier to hit a person.

No I was directly asking about things smaller than main body of humans. You then counted by making false claims to mispresent what I said.

In other words I asked a question and you counted with baseless attacks.

You said "something not bigger than a person. Like attacking the legs of a crazy"

I rightly pointed out that the legs of a crazy could be bigger than a person. "Person" has no fixed size, your comment was meaningless.

HU2, page 205, first paragraph on the page states that attacks against unprotected heads do damage direct to hit points.

I guess Dead Reign zombies aren't unprotected because they have a mystical SDC super-skull which protects their brain HP. I like the idea of a called shot at -3 instead of this "natural 17+ only" weirdness. I guess you could do both. Bonuses should at least count for the purpose of offsetting penalties.

[Blue_Lion]

The point is that it should be easier to hit larger things. The LRM is bigger than a person, so it shouldn't be easier to hit a person.

No I was directly asking about things smaller than main body of humans. You then counted by making false claims to mispresent what I said.

In other words I asked a question and you counted with baseless attacks.

You said "something not bigger than a person. Like attacking the legs of a crazy"

I rightly pointed out that the legs of a crazy could be bigger than a person. "Person" has no fixed size, your comment was meaningless.

HU2, page 205, first paragraph on the page states that attacks against unprotected heads do damage direct to hit points.

I guess Dead Reign zombies aren't unprotected because they have a mystical SDC super-skull which protects their brain HP. I like the idea of a called shot at -3 instead of this "natural 17+ only" weirdness. I guess you could do both. Bonuses should at least count for the purpose of offsetting penalties.

I should point out that person was your word choice not mine. So it is your statement about the lrm being bigger than a person that would be meaningless by your currant attack. I used your statement as a refence so any implied size comes from you not me.

My statement I asked about attacking parts of what can be a person. A part is by itself always smaller than the whole.If the broadkill is a person than his leg is smaller than a person. If the broadkill is not a person then he is irrelvent to things smaller than a person. Either way bringing up a broadkill was irrelevent to the question.



Your example of brodkill crazy, and claiming some one said a need to do called shot to hit the main body are just baseless attacks rather than awnser my question or anything productive. Now attacking me for your word choice, it does appear you are trolling on this.


(Really attacking me for your choice of words )

[Axelmania]

I should point out that person was your word choice not mine. So it is your statement about the lrm being bigger than a person that would be meaningless by your currant attack. I used your statement as a refence so any implied size comes from you not me.

I agree with you 100%. We should amend my original error. I believe the LRM is larger than the average human NGR soldier taking a ride on the vessel.

My statement I asked about attacking parts of what can be a person. A part is by itself always smaller than the whole.If the broadkill is a person than his leg is smaller than a person. If the broadkill is not a person then he is irrelvent to things smaller than a person. Either way bringing up a broadkill was irrelevent to the question.

My point is that I think the leg of a 12ft tall demon could possibly be larger than an entire 5ft tall human.

We should consider the absurdity of needing called shots to hit legs which are bigger than people who don't need called shots to hit.

Your example of brodkill crazy, and claiming some one said a need to do called shot to hit the main body are just baseless attacks rather than awnser my question or anything productive. Now attacking me for your word choice, it does appear you are trolling on this. (Really attacking me for your choice of words )

I was right to attack your word choice, just as we are both right to attack my original word choice now that you made me aware the original vagueness was my fault.

[Killer Cyborg]

We should consider the absurdity of needing called shots to hit legs which are bigger than people who don't need called shots to hit.

To what end?

[Blue_Lion]

I should point out that person was your word choice not mine. So it is your statement about the lrm being bigger than a person that would be meaningless by your currant attack. I used your statement as a refence so any implied size comes from you not me.

I agree with you 100%. We should amend my original error. I believe the LRM is larger than the average human NGR soldier taking a ride on the vessel.

My statement I asked about attacking parts of what can be a person. A part is by itself always smaller than the whole.If the broadkill is a person than his leg is smaller than a person. If the broadkill is not a person then he is irrelvent to things smaller than a person. Either way bringing up a broadkill was irrelevent to the question.

My point is that I think the leg of a 12ft tall demon could possibly be larger than an entire 5ft tall human.

We should consider the absurdity of needing called shots to hit legs which are bigger than people who don't need called shots to hit.

Your example of brodkill crazy, and claiming some one said a need to do called shot to hit the main body are just baseless attacks rather than awnser my question or anything productive. Now attacking me for your word choice, it does appear you are trolling on this. (Really attacking me for your choice of words )

I was right to attack your word choice, just as we are both right to attack my original word choice now that you made me aware the original vagueness was my fault.

As I was matching your word choice if you change your meaning to a typical NGR soldier then mine would have changed as well. So again it does not address my question. About attacking something part of your word choice.

And no you where wrong to attack me for your word choice. Just as you are wrong to imply I said that attacking the main body of a small target takes a called shot.


I did not attack your choice of words because doing so is a petty word game, and in this not really relevent.


It is not absurd to require a called shot to hit something other than center mass. Even if you think the penalty of doing a called shot is absurd for the difficulty of the called shot target. It is not absurd to require you to annonce you are hitting something other than the main body which is what a called shot is.

[eliakon]

Especially since the rules specifically state that ALL ATTACKS hit the main body/center of mass unless otherwise specified
Period.
Yes, even that one.
So, no, there is no special out for some NGR vehicle.
Thanks for playing, but the RAW says that all attacks will hit the main body. If you want to house rule it, that's fine. But with out a called shot, you will always hit the main body.

[Axelmania]

As I was matching your word choice if you change your meaning to a typical NGR soldier then mine would have changed as well.

Good. Please change it.

So again it does not address my question. About attacking something part of your word choice.

Please rephrase a complete question.

And no you where wrong to attack me for your word choice.

Wrong word choices should be attacked, you were wrong to continue the vagueness just as I was wrong to initiate it.

I owe you an apology for introducing a vague word, I do not owe you an apology for condemning my vague word repeated through you.

Just as you are wrong to imply I said that attacking the main body of a small target takes a called shot.

I'm not sure where you think I did that. I expect this is a misunderstanding based on the bad phrasing, let's backpedal.

I did not attack your choice of words because doing so is a petty word game, and in this not really relevent.

There is nothing petty about being accurate. Humans v Gurgoyles is a valid comparison we certainly can't explore with a term like "person".

It is not absurd to require a called shot to hit something other than center mass. Even if you think the penalty of doing a called shot is absurd for the difficulty of the called shot target. It is not absurd to require you to annonce you are hitting something other than the main body which is what a called shot is.

I'm referring more to the increased difficulty than the need to announce.

The absurdity is more along the lines that it should be easier to hit large targets and harder to hit small ones. The rules sometimes add penalties to reflect that, but often do not.

Especially since the rules specifically state that ALL ATTACKS hit the main body/center of mass unless otherwise specified
Period.
Yes, even that one.
So, no, there is no special out for some NGR vehicle.
Thanks for playing, but the RAW says that all attacks will hit the main body. If you want to house rule it, that's fine. But with out a called shot, you will always hit the main body.

Interestingly: sometimes you need to make called shots to hit the pilots of certain vehicles, even if it is the main body of their body armor your are trying to hit.

[Killer Cyborg]

As I was matching your word choice if you change your meaning to a typical NGR soldier then mine would have changed as well.

Good. Please change it.

So again it does not address my question. About attacking something part of your word choice.

Please rephrase a complete question.

And no you where wrong to attack me for your word choice.

Wrong word choices should be attacked, you were wrong to continue the vagueness just as I was wrong to initiate it.

I owe you an apology for introducing a vague word, I do not owe you an apology for condemning my vague word repeated through you.

Just as you are wrong to imply I said that attacking the main body of a small target takes a called shot.

I'm not sure where you think I did that. I expect this is a misunderstanding based on the bad phrasing, let's backpedal.

I did not attack your choice of words because doing so is a petty word game, and in this not really relevent.

There is nothing petty about being accurate. Humans v Gurgoyles is a valid comparison we certainly can't explore with a term like "person".

It is not absurd to require a called shot to hit something other than center mass. Even if you think the penalty of doing a called shot is absurd for the difficulty of the called shot target. It is not absurd to require you to annonce you are hitting something other than the main body which is what a called shot is.

I'm referring more to the increased difficulty than the need to announce.

The absurdity is more along the lines that it should be easier to hit large targets and harder to hit small ones. The rules sometimes add penalties to reflect that, but often do not.

Especially since the rules specifically state that ALL ATTACKS hit the main body/center of mass unless otherwise specified
Period.
Yes, even that one.
So, no, there is no special out for some NGR vehicle.
Thanks for playing, but the RAW says that all attacks will hit the main body. If you want to house rule it, that's fine. But with out a called shot, you will always hit the main body.

Interestingly: sometimes you need to make called shots to hit the pilots of certain vehicles, even if it is the main body of their body armor your are trying to hit.

The main body of the body armor is not the main body of the vehicle.
This isn’t rocket science.

[Blue_Lion]

As I was matching your word choice if you change your meaning to a typical NGR soldier then mine would have changed as well.

Good. Please change it.

So again it does not address my question. About attacking something part of your word choice.

Please rephrase a complete question.

And no you where wrong to attack me for your word choice.

Wrong word choices should be attacked, you were wrong to continue the vagueness just as I was wrong to initiate it.

I owe you an apology for introducing a vague word, I do not owe you an apology for condemning my vague word repeated through you.

Just as you are wrong to imply I said that attacking the main body of a small target takes a called shot.

I'm not sure where you think I did that. I expect this is a misunderstanding based on the bad phrasing, let's backpedal.

I did not attack your choice of words because doing so is a petty word game, and in this not really relevent.

There is nothing petty about being accurate. Humans v Gurgoyles is a valid comparison we certainly can't explore with a term like "person".

It is not absurd to require a called shot to hit something other than center mass. Even if you think the penalty of doing a called shot is absurd for the difficulty of the called shot target. It is not absurd to require you to annonce you are hitting something other than the main body which is what a called shot is.

I'm referring more to the increased difficulty than the need to announce.

The absurdity is more along the lines that it should be easier to hit large targets and harder to hit small ones. The rules sometimes add penalties to reflect that, but often do not.

Especially since the rules specifically state that ALL ATTACKS hit the main body/center of mass unless otherwise specified
Period.
Yes, even that one.
So, no, there is no special out for some NGR vehicle.
Thanks for playing, but the RAW says that all attacks will hit the main body. If you want to house rule it, that's fine. But with out a called shot, you will always hit the main body.

Interestingly: sometimes you need to make called shots to hit the pilots of certain vehicles, even if it is the main body of their body armor your are trying to hit.

This seams more a petty attack than any real point.

There is no reason for me to change what I said. As I worded the size of person is irrelevant. If you want to change how you define person to typical NGR soldier that does not require me to change my statement. So you are now stating that by person you intended your original statement that a person referring to a typical ngr soldier not require me to amend my original statement. (you simply just clarified what was a person in the statement.)

Basically there is no reason to attack my word choice as it was a response to your statement. Your post was just a baseless attack that does not really adress anything and is just attacking for it own sake.

Where and who said you need to do a called shot to hit the main body of a pilots armor? (this seams like you creating false points for you to attack.)

[Axelmania]

There is nothing petty about clarifying person > human. It enhances our argument.

The size of a person is relevant when comparing them to the size of a missile. That is the premise I'm talking about.

Just because you repeat someone else's error doesn't mean nobody should criticize you for making the error. I've admitted the initial vagueness was my own, but you also bear responsibility for repeating it and not correcting it until after I corrected your repeating of me.

My "attack" was not "baseless" because a "person" has no established size range in Rifts since we can't assume they are human-sized.

Where and who said you need to do a called shot to hit the main body of a pilots armor? (this seams like you creating false points for you to attack.)

I said that, just now. It was an accessory point of curiosity to the issues eliakon was discussing.

[guardiandashi]

There is nothing petty about clarifying person > human. It enhances our argument.

The size of a person is relevant when comparing them to the size of a missile. That is the premise I'm talking about.

Just because you repeat someone else's error doesn't mean nobody should criticize you for making the error. I've admitted the initial vagueness was my own, but you also bear responsibility for repeating it and not correcting it until after I corrected your repeating of me.

My "attack" was not "baseless" because a "person" has no established size range in Rifts since we can't assume they are human-sized.

Where and who said you need to do a called shot to hit the main body of a pilots armor? (this seams like you creating false points for you to attack.)

I said that, just now. It was an accessory point of curiosity to the issues eliakon was discussing.

pointless nitpicking and attempting to ovuscate the argument.

as mentioned the rule is ALL attacks strike the main body, unless otherwise stated, unless you make an aimed/called shot to attempt to strike something else.

when shooting at the pilot/operator of a vehicle this in most cases would require a called shot because the main body of the pilot does NOT count as the main body of the vehicle.

when firing at the missile on a missile carrier such as the NGR one, or even an ICBM carrier the missile is NOT the main body of the vehicle unless the description explicitly and specifically says it counts as main body.

the relative size of various targets would be covered under "other modifiers if applicable" but in general would be house rules even if logical.

to use an example shooting at a UAR1 50 feet away should reasonably be easier to hit than the human sized target standing beside it, and much easier than shooting the 1ft tall thing beside it. although the basic rules typically don't take that into account.

the only time there is explicit strike penalties are when you look at the vehicle and it says something like (insert location) is a small difficult target to strike and requires a called shot at (insert penalty) to strike

for instance the glitter boy power armor pg 71 mdc by location:
rail gun 175 mdc
* head 290
* hands (2) 100 each

* a single Astrisk indicates a small and difficult target to strike, requiring the attacker to make a "Called Shot," and even the assailant is -4 to strike.

[Blue_Lion]

There is nothing petty about clarifying person > human. It enhances our argument.

The size of a person is relevant when comparing them to the size of a missile. That is the premise I'm talking about.

Just because you repeat someone else's error doesn't mean nobody should criticize you for making the error. I've admitted the initial vagueness was my own, but you also bear responsibility for repeating it and not correcting it until after I corrected your repeating of me.

My "attack" was not "baseless" because a "person" has no established size range in Rifts since we can't assume they are human-sized.

Where and who said you need to do a called shot to hit the main body of a pilots armor? (this seams like you creating false points for you to attack.)

I said that, just now. It was an accessory point of curiosity to the issues eliakon was discussing.

It is petty to attack me for your word choice when you change it defintion to include things not normally refered to as person. (Person does have the meaning human after all, but you unilaterally decided that in rifts in includes non-humans.)

Don't believe me here are the leading US and UK dictionaries.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/person

The way you used it appeared to be the first meaning of person- Human often used by people that prefer to avoid the man compound that applies to both sexes. (So requiring the change of meaning to typical NGR solider is just being petty.)

So yea you are just making baseless attacks rather than making any real point. Even if you change the defintion to include non-humans my the questions as I posted stand as written. So there is no reason for me to amend my statement.

At this point it does seam you are just trolling you never responded to my question just made baseless attacks. Do you intend to adress my comment about attacking things smaller than a person?

The way you worded does seam that you where implying that the person you quoted said that attacks to hit the main body of the pilot needed to be called. When what he said was all attacks hit the main body unless called. So no one else it up it was just another attempt to create a pointless argument.

[eliakon]

Especially since the rules specifically state that ALL ATTACKS hit the main body/center of mass unless otherwise specified
Period.
Yes, even that one.
So, no, there is no special out for some NGR vehicle.
Thanks for playing, but the RAW says that all attacks will hit the main body. If you want to house rule it, that's fine. But with out a called shot, you will always hit the main body.

Interestingly: sometimes you need to make called shots to hit the pilots of certain vehicles, even if it is the main body of their body armor your are trying to hit.

Provide a citation of an example where you have to make a called shot to hit the main body.
Hitting the pilot isnt the main body, so yeah, shooting the pilot? Thats a called shot. Because the pilot isn't the main body of the vehicle.
But if you shoot at a vehicle, then you hit the main body of the vehicle.
If you shoot at the Pilot, then you hit the pilots main body.

Or using small words striped of shenanigans.
You always hit the main body of the target you are shooting at.
A pilot on a motercycle is not the mainbody. They are a hit location of a motercycle. The chest of the pilot though is the main body of the pilot. The chest of the pilot though is not the main body of the motercycle.
The two locations have nothing what so ever to do with each other and are different locations and different targets. And are only linked by the most tenuous of sophistry

[dreicunan]

Especially since the rules specifically state that ALL ATTACKS hit the main body/center of mass unless otherwise specified
Period.
Yes, even that one.
So, no, there is no special out for some NGR vehicle.
Thanks for playing, but the RAW says that all attacks will hit the main body. If you want to house rule it, that's fine. But with out a called shot, you will always hit the main body.

Interestingly: sometimes you need to make called shots to hit the pilots of certain vehicles, even if it is the main body of their body armor your are trying to hit.

Provide a citation of an example where you have to make a called shot to hit the main body.
Hitting the pilot isnt the main body, so yeah, shooting the pilot? Thats a called shot. Because the pilot isn't the main body of the vehicle.
But if you shoot at a vehicle, then you hit the main body of the vehicle.
If you shoot at the Pilot, then you hit the pilots main body.

Or using small words striped of shenanigans.
You always hit the main body of the target you are shooting at.
A pilot on a motercycle is not the mainbody. They are a hit location of a motercycle. The chest of the pilot though is the main body of the pilot. The chest of the pilot though is not the main body of the motercycle.
The two locations have nothing what so ever to do with each other and are different locations and different targets. And are only linked by the most tenuous of sophistry

Your example, however has me pondering how to process a called shot on the arm of the pilot on the motorcycle.

I think for some "vehicles", such as a scooter, common sense can be applied to rule what should be considered a hit location of what. For another example, a sled for luge is a vehicle, but I'd probably rule that if you are shooting at someone on it the sled would need to be targeted with a called shot, and an uncalled shot would hit the main body of the person on it.

[Blue_Lion]

I thin it boils down to if you are shooting the pilot you are not shooting the vehicle, If you are shooting the vehicle then you are not shooting the pilot.

[Killer Cyborg]

I thin it boils down to if you are shooting the pilot you are not shooting the vehicle, If you are shooting the vehicle then you are not shooting the pilot.

[dreicunan]

I thin it boils down to if you are shooting the pilot you are not shooting the vehicle, If you are shooting the vehicle then you are not shooting the pilot.

Sure, because once you've shot the thing you've shot the thing, and not the not-the-thing. The issue here is what we do when we are in that "shooting at" phase. I realize that is likely what you meant.

So, if I can see the pilot, can I choose to target him instead of the vehicle without a called shot?

I'm driving an open-topped jeep or dune buggy with roll bars. Would a called shot be required to hit me?

I can see one approach just being to treat the vehicle as cover, and then keep in mind issues of scale. For example, if I am targeting an exposed gunner on a huge aircraft carrier from while working as a gunner in an Air Castle, that would be adjucated differently than a SAMAS pilot strafing the thing targeting him, which might also be different from a Para-Trooper who landed on the deck with an assault team.

[eliakon]

I would say, that since the pilot is on (and thus effectively part of) the vehicle... you need a called shot to shoot the pilot.
You will need a better called shot to shoot the pilots arm.

You do not get a free pass on called shots by playing semantics games. This is because otherwise someone will simply claim that they are shooting at the main body of the sharpie pen in the shoulder pocket with their rocket launcher and want to make an unmodified roll. Nope.

[Axelmania]

pointless nitpicking and attempting to ovuscate the argument.

I wasn't trying to obfuscate anything, it isn't nitpicking to defend your behavior when it is attacked.

as mentioned the rule is ALL attacks strike the main body, unless otherwise stated, unless you make an aimed/called shot to attempt to strike something else.

Good thing mine strips and pit traps aren't attacks

when shooting at the pilot/operator of a vehicle this in most cases would require a called shot because the main body of the pilot does NOT count as the main body of the vehicle.

But it is the main body of the pilot.

when firing at the missile on a missile carrier such as the NGR one, or even an ICBM carrier the missile is NOT the main body of the vehicle unless the description explicitly and specifically says it counts as main body.

But the missile and the crew are essentially main bodies once they're off the vehicle. It's weird eh?

the relative size of various targets would be covered under "other modifiers if applicable" but in general would be house rules even if logical.

I kinda wanna borrow "size modifiers" from GURPS sometimes for this.

to use an example shooting at a UAR1 50 feet away should reasonably be easier to hit than the human sized target standing beside it, and much easier than shooting the 1ft tall thing beside it. although the basic rules typically don't take that into account.

Yeah, that's the primary realism issue.

the only time there is explicit strike penalties are when you look at the vehicle and it says something like (insert location) is a small difficult target to strike and requires a called shot at (insert penalty) to strike

There are also explicit strike penalties for being blind

It is petty to attack me for your word choice

There's nothing petty about it: I'm primarily attacking myself for using person instead of human, you're simply an afterthought caught in the blast radius for repeating my vagueness.

when you change it defintion to include things not normally refered to as person. (Person does have the meaning human after all, but you unilaterally decided that in rifts in includes non-humans.)

Since you are accusing me of uniliterally deciding this, are you affirming here that all uses of "person" or "people" in the Rifts line of books only refers to humans? The CS supporter in my heart finds this an enticing concept.

Don't believe me here are the leading US and UK dictionaries.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/person

Use by the book authors trumps any dictionary.

Human often used by people that prefer to avoid the man compound that applies to both sexes.
(So requiring the change of meaning to typical NGR solider is just being petty.)

I'm not understanding the connection you are making between the sexes and the NGR.

So yea you are just making baseless attacks rather than making any real point.

My criticism of my own word choice is not baseless. It caused regrettable confusion between us.

Even if you change the defintion to include non-humans my the questions as I posted stand as written. So there is no reason for me to amend my statement.

I don't think I'm amending a definition if Palladium already amended it. Unless you have some proof that Rifts ALWAYS means 100% humans when they refer to "people", and have never called a non-human a "person".

At this point it does seam you are just trolling you never responded to my question just made baseless attacks. Do you intend to adress my comment about attacking things smaller than a person?

I'll consider addressing it if you can reiterate it from scratch in a way that is legible to me.

The way you worded does seam that you where implying that the person you quoted said that attacks to hit the main body of the pilot needed to be called. When what he said was all attacks hit the main body unless called. So no one else it up it was just another attempt to create a pointless argument.

You are wrong to assume I was trying to start an argument. It just popped into my mind so I threw up a reminder.

Provide a citation of an example where you have to make a called shot to hit the main body.
Hitting the pilot isnt the main body, so yeah, shooting the pilot? Thats a called shot. Because the pilot isn't the main body of the vehicle.

Body armor has a main body, it does not cease to be main simply because the person in it is riding on a hovercycle.

So it is an example of needin

A pilot on a motercycle is not the mainbody. They are a hit location of a motercycle.

Pilots aren't part of the motorcycle, rather than hit location I'd say it's an example of needing a called shot to shoot someone behind cover.

[Blue_Lion]

Where does the book say a non human is a person you got a quote? I think it is safe to assume that the common use of person can be used in a question without needing to side track it into a debate about what is a person. More so given that you yourself used it to begin with then wanted to remove its value for the sake of a trolling tangent.

You want me to recite from scratch a question that you never addressed and just basically trolled on, that seams a waist of effort on part as the questions format is 100% valid while the tangent you took this was not. But because you asked I will post the question for a 3rd time.

In response to you saying that a missile on a platform was bigger than a person so there should be no penalty in your opinion. (you used the common use of person-human)
You think it is as easy to hit a mans arm as the main body?
what about something not bigger than a person. Like attacking the legs of a crazy, or the wings of a fairy?(seams like rules would be needed)

[Killer Cyborg]

pointless nitpicking and attempting to ovuscate the argument.

I wasn't trying to obfuscate anything

Then ya done f-ed up.
Not your first time.

Warning: Address the subject, not the poster. And that tone is not appreciated here. Mack

[Axelmania]

Where does the book say a non human is a person you got a quote?

Okay, so you ARE taking that stance? I'll have a look and get back to you. Shouldn't be hard.

I think it is safe to assume that the common use of person can be used in a question without needing to side track it into a debate about what is a person. More so given that you yourself used it to begin with then wanted to remove its value for the sake of a trolling tangent.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are referring the the Troll race, because Trolls are people too. The alternative that you might be flamebaiting-by-namecalling would be an intolerable alternative.

You want me to recite from scratch a question that you never addressed and just basically trolled on, that seams a waist of effort on part as the questions format is 100% valid while the tangent you took this was not. But because you asked I will post the question for a 3rd time.

I think you should entertain the idea that the format of your posts sometimes fall short of 100% validity.

We are capped at 98% skill, after all.

In response to you saying that a missile on a platform was bigger than a person so there should be no penalty in your opinion. (you used the common use of person-human)
You think it is as easy to hit a mans arm as the main body?

The arm of a 6ft man would be harder to hit than the body of a 6ft man.

The arm of a 30ft man might be harder to hit than the body of a 6ft man though.

This is what I've been focusing on. Do you disagree?

I'm talking about just in terms of realism though, I agree with earlier post that the rules don't reflect it.

what about something not bigger than a person. Like attacking the legs of a crazy, or the wings of a fairy?(seams like rules would be needed)

Even the main body of a fairy is smaller than a man's arm, much less the wings. I'm actually not sure how big fairy wings are meant to get in respect to their main bodies. It's plausible there may be creatures somewhere with wings larger than their torsos.

[Blue_Lion]

You do know man is a male/neutral human noun so what human is 30' tall?

So your focus in on highlighting your personal problem wit the rules is the reason you been avoiding giving a reply.

The way the rules are written attacking a targets main body has no penalty, but there has always been a higher requirement to hit any thing other than the main body. Small targets have a extra penalty for called shots. Do you know recognize that is the way the rules have been written?

(the format is a 100% valid if you drop the word games, and use there definition instead of changing it.)

[Axelmania]

You do know man is a male/neutral human noun so what human is 30' tall?

Someone with the major super ability of Growth. I think there's also a "Giant" spell which gets you to around 18.

So your focus in on highlighting your personal problem wit the rules is the reason you been avoiding giving a reply.

I've been replying to you within a day...

The way the rules are written attacking a targets main body has no penalty, but there has always been a higher requirement to hit any thing other than the main body. Small targets have a extra penalty for called shots. Do you know recognize that is the way the rules have been written?

That's the way they're written for ranged combat. I've seen no such universal ruling for melee combat.