|
|
Post by logan9a on Mar 7, 2017 3:27:36 GMT
Should we have them?
Before I believe they were -30%, all or nothing.
I could see it for 'getting around that pesky armor' (go for the eyes, Boo!) and possibly some very strange situations.
Example: Guy holds up the detonator and the PC's shoot him in the wrist sort of thing.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by bentpaperclip on Mar 7, 2017 11:53:31 GMT
I would limit it to special effects and not additional damage. With the potential for skills to get high, you'd end up with people calling shots every time to avoid armor or hit squishy bits for extra damage. Critical hits already cover good shots doing extra damage. That said, a called shot to shoot the detonator out of someone's hand would be situationally useful.
|
|
|
|
Post by logan9a on Mar 7, 2017 12:06:00 GMT
I wasn't thinking about extra damage just trying to get around armor if the person has some.
|
|
|
|
Post by bentpaperclip on Mar 7, 2017 12:16:47 GMT
Perhaps if they have a completely unarmored limb - yes? Small unarmored patch on the neck or something - no?
If they are in full plate, I'd rule "shooting him through the visor" as a critical. When you're playing a game with unbounded accuracy (such as this one - no upper limit of skill) if someone gets a high enough skill they will ALWAYS "shoot them in the eye."
|
|
|
|
Post by logan9a on Mar 7, 2017 13:42:04 GMT
That makes sense. I'm thinking about things like a heavily armored creature and an eye the size of say a human head.
Everyone would want to shoot out the eye. The question I suppose is do we let them?
If the 'called shot' had no armor reducing effects and was only used for very situational stuff (the hand holding the bomb, shooting around the hostage instead of through them) then it would make called shots a rare thing - which is also fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by bentpaperclip on Mar 7, 2017 14:33:54 GMT
I think either way would be fine. Called shots just become a way to do extra damage in certain circumstances (foe has armor). How would "I shoot him in the face" work on unarmored foes?
|
|
|
|
Post by logan9a on Mar 7, 2017 16:22:38 GMT
I think either way would be fine. Called shots just become a way to do extra damage in certain circumstances (foe has armor). How would "I shoot him in the face" work on unarmored foes? Cosmetically is the only way I can think of. Example: Travis (name picked at random, heh) and his team are heading out when in the distance 'El Gringo', the evil overlord says "I will get you and your little cats too!" Travis says "I'm going to shoot him in the face!" Rolls, hits, six damage and the team scoots out. Next time they meet El Gringo, he might have a scar on his face, a grudge and a taste for cat meat. |
|
|
|
Post by bentpaperclip on Mar 7, 2017 18:01:17 GMT
Roger that. So would shooting him in the face not have a penalty, and it would all be fluff?
|
|
|
|
Post by logan9a on Mar 7, 2017 19:14:46 GMT
I'm thinking that if you wanted some definite fluff (now he has a scar) or some sort of thing to happen (drop that detonator) then you get the negative.
If you say 'shoot him in the face' the same way you discuss 'punching bees in the face' (ie you really don't care if he gets hit in the face, you're just throwing some lead at him to show you are displeased with him) then you don't get the negative.
|
|
AND 