Forums of the Megaverse®

Do traps damage the main body or hit locations?

Normal rules indicate to strike(damage) other than the main body requires a called shot.
Are there any rules that govern trap damage making it immune to this, or are traps all covered by GMs discretion.
How would you rule on it?

My Vote is No, an attack of any kind does not automatically damage the main body.

Megaversally speaking there is precedent for an attack to damage something other than the main body. 1E RT RPG Bk2 "RDF Manual" (and IINM later Bk5) for the AM-1 Anti-Mecha Mine makes this note "Considering this is a land mine, the G.M. may opt to subtract damage from the legs rather than the main body. I personally feel this is the most appropriate; after all, the legs are taking the brunt of the damage." And the blast radius here is 40ft, which is large enough to hit the main body on most mecha in Robotech in this era.

So if logically (or even by just common sense) the trap/attack's focus would be on the legs (or what ever other part) then yes it would not automatically damage the main body. Kevin also had several other examples of "common sense" being applied, like jumping on a grenade (REF Field Guide, Rifts Conversion Book 1 Revised).

And it should be pointed out that some of the traps mentioned in the skill description (WB11 CWC) are actually described as by passing the MDC of the armor and harming the person inside the body armor (or other MD Structure) w/o doing any real harm to the MD object. And some even state they may not damage their target (at all or further), but instead incapacitate them (and thus doing an attack targeting something other than the main body).

EDIT fixed spelling in quote from the 1E RT RPG.

to be honest it depends on the type of trap.
with that said by default all traps would hit the main body, with some kinds of traps at the gm's digression hitting other locations because "its more logical" or "it makes sense..."

ShadowLogan wrote:My Vote is No, an attack of any kind does not automatically damage the main body.

Megaversally speaking there is precedent for an attack to damage something other than the main body. 1E RT RPG Bk2 "RDF Manual" (and IINM later Bk5) for the AM-1 Anti-Mecha Mine makes this note "Considering this is a land mine, the G.M. may opt to subtract damage from thte legs rather than the main body.

Interesting quote, it seams to me it saying the default damage is main body but having it damage the legs instead as an optional rule.

I do not have that book so can not verify the accuracy of that quote.
There would also be the mater of people deciding if it is relevant to rifts.

Blue_Lion wrote:

ShadowLogan wrote:My Vote is No, an attack of any kind does not automatically damage the main body.

Megaversally speaking there is precedent for an attack to damage something other than the main body. 1E RT RPG Bk2 "RDF Manual" (and IINM later Bk5) for the AM-1 Anti-Mecha Mine makes this note "Considering this is a land mine, the G.M. may opt to subtract damage from thte legs rather than the main body.

Interesting quote, it seams to me it saying the default damage is main body but having it damage the legs instead as an optional rule.

I do not have that book so can not verify the accuracy of that quote.
There would also be the mater of people deciding if it is relevant to rifts.

Other than a typing typo it should be accurate (I'll fix that).

I agree it is an optional rule, but one that KS personally feels (at least at one time, I don't know about more recent titles) is most appropriate lending credence to the the common sense thing.

As I said it was "megaversally speaking", so I can agree it may or may not be relevant to Rifts, but as everything is supposed to work with one rule system.

It's situational.

ShadowLogan wrote:My Vote is No, an attack of any kind does not automatically damage the main body.

Megaversally speaking there is precedent for an attack to damage something other than the main body. 1E RT RPG Bk2 "RDF Manual" (and IINM later Bk5) for the AM-1 Anti-Mecha Mine makes this note "Considering this is a land mine, the G.M. may opt to subtract damage from the legs rather than the main body. I personally feel this is the most appropriate; after all, the legs are taking the brunt of the damage." And the blast radius here is 40ft, which is large enough to hit the main body on most mecha in Robotech in this era.

Sounds like a side note stating that GMs are able to go against the rules in places where it makes sense to them.
The rules in this case being that attacks damage the main body unless a Called Shot is made.

As far as I know, there is no rule specifically stating that traps cannot be designed to make a Called Shot.
A crossbow trap aimed at head height, for example, could be considered a Called Shot to the head, assuming that the trapee is of the expected height.

No. Use common sense, regardless of what the rules say.

A toe popper has just enough explosive force to destroy a foot and mangle a lower leg. A Bouncing Betty, OTOH, jumps a few feet in the air and then explodes, enabling the fragments to have a better chance of 1) bypassing any possible ground clutter that could provide cover, and 2) scoring a lethal hit.

A punji pit that's only a foot deep isn't going to put a stake thru your lung. Anyone who tries to argue otherwise should be immediately banned from the gaming group.

Common sense is an uncommon virtue nowadays.

Blue_Lion wrote:Normal rules indicate to strike(damage) other than the main body requires a called shot.

I'm of the mind that RUE 361 pertains only to firearms. If explosives are contacting a portion of a target by some other means, the GM would reasonably determine what takes the damage. There isn't any "shot" to call.

Blue_Lion wrote:

ShadowLogan wrote:1E RT RPG Bk2 "RDF Manual" (and IINM later Bk5) for the AM-1 Anti-Mecha Mine makes this note "Considering this is a land mine, the G.M. may opt to subtract damage from thte legs rather than the main body.

Interesting quote, it seams to me it saying the default damage is main body but having it damage the legs instead as an optional rule.

In a sense, ALL rules are optional, as the GM is the ultimate authority, no?

Killer Cyborg wrote:Sounds like a side note stating that GMs are able to go against the rules in places where it makes sense to them.
The rules in this case being that attacks damage the main body unless a Called Shot is made.

The quote makes no mention of this going "against" any rules. Where in Robotech does it mention any kind of requirement for called shots to hit things other than the main body outside of reference to ranged combat with guns?

Axelmania, it does state it is going against normal damage rules by its own wording.

"the GM may opt to subtract the damage from the legs rather than the main body."

That statement clearly is saying the GM can choose to do X instead of Y. That makes Y the normal default.

As to rules and optional rules. Some rules are always in affect by RAW these are kind of hard rules. Then there are optional rules, these are rules that are not part of RAW but still rules in print. A printed choice for the GM.

"The customer may opt to order a fish sandwhich instead of a beef hamburger"

Assumed defaults aren't the same as absolute rules.

Axelmania wrote:"The customer may opt to order a fish sandwhich instead of a beef hamburger"

Assumed defaults aren't the same as absolute rules.

That is a false comparison/misleading statement on your part.(not to mention false values of comparison.

When talking about rules mechanics of game saying you may opt to x rather than Y.
is putting as Y as the default.
Why is Y the default because if you do not choose to do x then you default to Y.

X only happens if the GM opts to do X, if he makes no choice to do X then Y would happen.

*When you have a statement making binary options and one is listed as something you have to choose to do(opt) take instead of the other the other becomes the default value*
You may opt to pay 5% of your pay into the army thrift saving plan instead of 2%.
2% is the default value and 5% is a value that you can choose in place of the default.
You may get a vegieburger instead of hamburger.
Hamburger is the default meal and the vegie is something you can choose instead of the default.

John bought blue solo cups instead of red solo cups.
Red is the implied default, and blue was something different than the default.

The word instead means it is replacing something.
Opt means it is something you have to choose to do.

When you combine opt with instead that makes what is being replaced a stated default value.
Instead without the opt part would be a implied default value.



We also have a rule in the books that says to hit something other than the main body you need to do a called shot. You assume that it is limited to fire arm. However that ruled combined with the wording of the statement makes your assumption seem less likely to be true.

The Beast wrote:It's situational.

^this^ so much this
Basically some traps basically ARE making a 'called shot' to the <whatever>

The classic dungeon trap where a blade scythes out a foot of the floor to cut legs off of people... well that was set up by a person to hit a specific location... which is the definition of a called shot, they just used the traps skill to do it basically. Same with a landmine you step in, or the infamous 'electrified door knob' or any number of other traps.

HOWEVER I would also like to point out that the entire SDC/MDC/HP system is supposed to be an abstraction. When you get in a fight with a person they damage comes off of the "main body"... but in a Power Armor or the like that is more of "general hit points". Sometimes the damage to the main body is not done to the main body if that makes sense. Instead the Main Body MDC is the pool that tracks the units total structural integrity. When that fails the unit is out. Just like a humans SDC/HP, which is basically a humans "Main body SDC" since you can make a called shot to their hand which has its own SDC pool.
So blowing up the unit with mines, and the like will eventually knock out the unit. The damage when evaluated for repair might described as being to the treads and drives and underside armor and what not... but you basically 'ran out of HP'.

eliakon wrote:Sometimes the damage to the main body is not done to the main body if that makes sense. Instead the Main Body MDC is the pool that tracks the units total structural integrity.

Very astute analysis.

Generally, unless something else makes more sense.

For example, I would say mines would tend to damage feet and other things in contact with the ground before they damage the main body... though could easily see a tank taking damage to treads and main body from a ground explosive.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:Sometimes the damage to the main body is not done to the main body if that makes sense. Instead the Main Body MDC is the pool that tracks the units total structural integrity.

Very astute analysis.

eliakon the wise?!

and i'd say it is main body damage by "default" which is to say when there is no chosen alternative. If your GM or Players don't choose to try and hit something besides body with an attack (whether that is a called shot, or rigging a trap to strike a certain area) then they just don't. If they specifically set up a trap to do something......well then we get cases like in Homealone, critical shots to the head with paint cans, nails doing damage to feet *Cringes*, hands taking damage from heated doorknobs, knockdowns by icy sidewalks, in three we see someone we someone take a crotch shot and go down from a boxing glove spring trap, another loses their hair to a old lawn mower...these are all either special effects or "called shots" being dealt by the trap, its just instead of the trap rolling to hit the character should be rolling to dodge and then only if he knows its coming, sort of like a fireball (must know its coming and even then an 18 to dodge).

Instead of saying its a called shot you'd be better off looking at it as a "Special Effect" of the trap since there is no attack rolls involved

Mark Hall wrote:Generally, unless something else makes more sense.

For example, I would say mines would tend to damage feet and other things in contact with the ground before they damage the main body... though could easily see a tank taking damage to treads and main body from a ground explosive.

The books support this! The 'main body' rules are just for guns!

Axelmania wrote:

Mark Hall wrote:Generally, unless something else makes more sense.

For example, I would say mines would tend to damage feet and other things in contact with the ground before they damage the main body... though could easily see a tank taking damage to treads and main body from a ground explosive.

The books support this! The 'main body' rules are just for guns!

no it doesn't

what it actually says is that all damage goes to the main body UNLESS the gm rules otherwise. for reasons.

having a trap set to attempt to damage something other than the main body during its construction is fine. its like using the demolitions roll to place the explosives to get maximum effect (apply damage to weaker parts, and or specific locations) you are just doing it with another skill IE trapmaking.

Eliakon said it the best, the main body is not just a specific location (the main portion of the unit) its also a general summary of the overall health of the unit, that's why all damage unless specifically targeted elsewhere applies to it. which is also why missiles and other area of attacks hit the main body by default. (and or specific rules) unless the defender does something to try to get the damage to go somewhere else by blocking and or parrying.

Mark Hall wrote:Generally, unless something else makes more sense.

For example, I would say mines would tend to damage feet and other things in contact with the ground before they damage the main body... though could easily see a tank taking damage to treads and main body from a ground explosive.

This is kinda how we used to do it as well. It mostly does damage to main body but some things like mines being run over by a wheel it makes sense to apply that damage to the wheel/leg in question. For players in normal body armor we always did it to main body otherwise its to easy for mines to be super deadly by incinerating you through your shoe.

kaid wrote:

Mark Hall wrote:Generally, unless something else makes more sense.

For example, I would say mines would tend to damage feet and other things in contact with the ground before they damage the main body... though could easily see a tank taking damage to treads and main body from a ground explosive.

This is kinda how we used to do it as well. It mostly does damage to main body but some things like mines being run over by a wheel it makes sense to apply that damage to the wheel/leg in question. For players in normal body armor we always did it to main body otherwise its to easy for mines to be super deadly by incinerating you through your shoe.

Which, TBH, is kinda the point of APM.

guardiandashi wrote:no it doesn't

what it actually says is that all damage goes to the main body UNLESS the gm rules otherwise. for reasons.

It SAYS that? In the ranged combat section? Point-blank explosions don't seem ranged.

guardiandashi wrote:which is also why missiles and other area of attacks hit the main body by default.

Missiles and other RANGED area of effect attacks? Sure. Fusion block under your pillow? Helmet will take the brunt.

guardiandashi wrote:unless the defender does something to try to get the damage to go somewhere else by blocking and or parrying.

Or the attacker makes a called shot.

I know the Deflect spell can parry missiles, but I think that ends up working like a dodge in that you avoid being the target of the explosion unless you're still in the blast radius of whever it ends up hitting.

How's this traps that are designed to get something other than the main body like mines and bear traps are making called shots. To make a called shot doesn't require a character NPC or PC to yell out "HEAD SHOT!!!" This isn't Order of the Stick. Nor does a called shot require that an animated object be using the item or even need to be alive. An Anti-Tank mine makes called shots for the tracks or underside (if it is weaker than and not included as "The Main Body" a bear trap makes a called shot for the ankle a blade that is set neck high makes a call for such and if they missed the trap was avoided or didn't go off.

This is an area to apply logic. Did a land mine get triggered by you stepping on it? Or By a tank tread roloing over it? Foot/tread takes,damage. Did it get detonated by a proximity sensor and you are just in the blast radius? Main body does, following the normal convention for explosions.

The problem with treating it as a called shot is that called shots are specified as requiring a WP skill now.

Axelmania wrote:The problem with treating it as a called shot is that called shots are specified as requiring a WP skill now.

Are they?

Axelmania wrote:The problem with treating it as a called shot is that called shots are specified as requiring a WP skill now.

And so why I said treat it as a special effect of the weapon, not a called anything. Since you don't roll a to hit you don't call anything. You just hit it as an effect of the items properties and placement, like placed explosives blowing a hole in a building and not dealing damage to all of it equally until it collapses into a rubble pile.

eliakon wrote:

The Beast wrote:It's situational.

^this^ so much this
Basically some traps basically ARE making a 'called shot' to the <whatever>

The classic dungeon trap where a blade scythes out a foot of the floor to cut legs off of people... well that was set up by a person to hit a specific location... which is the definition of a called shot, they just used the traps skill to do it basically. Same with a landmine you step in, or the infamous 'electrified door knob' or any number of other traps.

HOWEVER I would also like to point out that the entire SDC/MDC/HP system is supposed to be an abstraction. When you get in a fight with a person they damage comes off of the "main body"... but in a Power Armor or the like that is more of "general hit points". Sometimes the damage to the main body is not done to the main body if that makes sense. Instead the Main Body MDC is the pool that tracks the units total structural integrity. When that fails the unit is out. Just like a humans SDC/HP, which is basically a humans "Main body SDC" since you can make a called shot to their hand which has its own SDC pool.
So blowing up the unit with mines, and the like will eventually knock out the unit. The damage when evaluated for repair might described as being to the treads and drives and underside armor and what not... but you basically 'ran out of HP'.

Yup.

An attack to the "main body" could hit anywhere. It could hit in the leg, the arm, the head, or the body. "Main body" as a game term is just an abstraction to represent how much damage the thing can take before being destroyed. It is abstracted for ease of gameplay.

Let's say you have Bob and he is wearing a suit of environmental armor with 42 MDC. It protects him from all angles, in all locations. Then he gets hit with a magic sword, and takes 40 damage to the chest. His armor has 2 MDC remaining. All the damage he has taken is in one location. There's a big nasty slash right across his chest. It almost penetrated the armor. Then somebody walks up behind Bob and shoots him in the butt with a Wilk's laser pistol. 1D6 MD. They roll a 3. What happens?

If you think about it like that, it doesn't really make sense that the attack will get through. The chest plate and the butt armor are obviously two different pieces that are fitted together. The butt armor should be undamaged by the blow to the chest. It should be 100% fresh butt armor. But then you run into real issues of playability. You don't want to keep track of a million different hit locations. "Okay, this one hit under my left arm. That is armor plate 27." So instead we just abstract it. Part of that abstraction is in the damage roll itself. A higher damage roll means a hit that damaged more important stuff. A lower damage roll could mean a glancing hit, or damage to a location that is unlikely to be hit again.

"Okay, you shot him with your laser rifle. That's 4D6, roll it. Okay, you got... huh. 4 damage. Well, I guess you hit him in the bottom of the foot, or something."

Detailing out something like that, every single hit, would be a huge pain, and not really worth it. So instead of trying to do that, it's all just considered main body.

dreicunan wrote:This is an area to apply logic. Did a land mine get triggered by you stepping on it? Or By a tank tread roloing over it? Foot/tread takes,damage. Did it get detonated by a proximity sensor and you are just in the blast radius? Main body does, following the normal convention for explosions.

What about a bouncing Betty that is triggered by the foot but is supposed to pop up to about head height? Or any trip line detonated device that could be set at any height with the tripwire triggered by the foot/leg

Zer0 Kay wrote:

dreicunan wrote:This is an area to apply logic. Did a land mine get triggered by you stepping on it? Or By a tank tread roloing over it? Foot/tread takes,damage. Did it get detonated by a proximity sensor and you are just in the blast radius? Main body does, following the normal convention for explosions.

What about a bouncing Betty that is triggered by the foot but is supposed to pop up to about head height? Or any trip line detonated device that could be set at any height with the tripwire triggered by the foot/leg

please please please read what the guy said...

then reread it

if you still need to ask what you just asked reread it again.

if you STILL need to ask that question, he just told you the answers, apply logic, if the betty explodes under your foot what happens? the tripwire is a trigger not the explosive, just like a proximity sensor, but it only senses in a line.

Nightmartree wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:

dreicunan wrote:This is an area to apply logic. Did a land mine get triggered by you stepping on it? Or By a tank tread roloing over it? Foot/tread takes,damage. Did it get detonated by a proximity sensor and you are just in the blast radius? Main body does, following the normal convention for explosions.

What about a bouncing Betty that is triggered by the foot but is supposed to pop up to about head height? Or any trip line detonated device that could be set at any height with the tripwire triggered by the foot/leg

please please please read what the guy said...

then reread it

if you still need to ask what you just asked reread it again.

if you STILL need to ask that question, he just told you the answers, apply logic, if the betty explodes under your foot what happens? the tripwire is a trigger not the explosive, just like a proximity sensor, but it only senses in a line.

No.

Do you know what a bouncing Betty is? I get the apply logic but that simply means go with what makes sense rather than calling it a called shot.

Bouncing Bettys don't explode under foot. They're designed to pop up to head height and then detonate. Essentially it attempts a called shot. Same with a trip wire. It may be a trigger but a trip wire at ankle height tied to a grenade at head height shouldn't just have logic applied to it.
First the trip wire shouldn't be a guaranteed trigger even if the target doesn't see it as they may still miss it.
Second the grenade it is tied to may not be set to the targets head height. So it is really a delayed called shot by the person who set the trip wire and grenade that just doesnt happen till a later time.

Don't attempt to instruct me again.

Zer0 Kay wrote:

Nightmartree wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:

dreicunan wrote:This is an area to apply logic. Did a land mine get triggered by you stepping on it? Or By a tank tread roloing over it? Foot/tread takes,damage. Did it get detonated by a proximity sensor and you are just in the blast radius? Main body does, following the normal convention for explosions.

What about a bouncing Betty that is triggered by the foot but is supposed to pop up to about head height? Or any trip line detonated device that could be set at any height with the tripwire triggered by the foot/leg

please please please read what the guy said...

then reread it

if you still need to ask what you just asked reread it again.

if you STILL need to ask that question, he just told you the answers, apply logic, if the betty explodes under your foot what happens? the tripwire is a trigger not the explosive, just like a proximity sensor, but it only senses in a line.

No.

Do you know what a bouncing Betty is? I get the apply logic but that simply means go with what makes sense rather than calling it a called shot.

Bouncing Bettys don't explode under foot. They're designed to pop up to head height and then detonate. Essentially it attempts a called shot. Same with a trip wire. It may be a trigger but a trip wire at ankle height tied to a grenade at head height shouldn't just have logic applied to it.
First the trip wire shouldn't be a guaranteed trigger even if the target doesn't see it as they may still miss it.
Second the grenade it is tied to may not be set to the targets head height. So it is really a delayed called shot by the person who set the trip wire and grenade that just doesnt happen till a later time.

Don't attempt to instruct me again.

The reason they told you to read the section is that they cover that.
It is a device set of by a remote sensor.
And makes a called shot.
Hmmm.
Just like what was suggested.

that whole "Logic" thing

The mine did not go off when stepped on, nor is it a generic explosion. Gee I guess that means you go to the "apply logic" step.
That is why you can have games instead of needing to detail out every single item that is allowed to exist in the game, and every single use and interaction between every item.
There will never be a full list of every possible form of trap, mine and IED that can ever be devised with a full listing of how it will interact in every circumstance.
This is a game not a doctoral thesis.

eliakon wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:

Nightmartree wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:

dreicunan wrote:This is an area to apply logic. Did a land mine get triggered by you stepping on it? Or By a tank tread roloing over it? Foot/tread takes,damage. Did it get detonated by a proximity sensor and you are just in the blast radius? Main body does, following the normal convention for explosions.

What about a bouncing Betty that is triggered by the foot but is supposed to pop up to about head height? Or any trip line detonated device that could be set at any height with the tripwire triggered by the foot/leg

please please please read what the guy said...

then reread it

if you still need to ask what you just asked reread it again.

if you STILL need to ask that question, he just told you the answers, apply logic, if the betty explodes under your foot what happens? the tripwire is a trigger not the explosive, just like a proximity sensor, but it only senses in a line.

No.

Do you know what a bouncing Betty is? I get the apply logic but that simply means go with what makes sense rather than calling it a called shot.

Bouncing Bettys don't explode under foot. They're designed to pop up to head height and then detonate. Essentially it attempts a called shot. Same with a trip wire. It may be a trigger but a trip wire at ankle height tied to a grenade at head height shouldn't just have logic applied to it.
First the trip wire shouldn't be a guaranteed trigger even if the target doesn't see it as they may still miss it.
Second the grenade it is tied to may not be set to the targets head height. So it is really a delayed called shot by the person who set the trip wire and grenade that just doesnt happen till a later time.

Don't attempt to instruct me again.

The reason they told you to read the section is that they cover that.
It is a device set of by a remote sensor.
And makes a called shot.
Hmmm.
Just like what was suggested.

that whole "Logic" thing

The mine did not go off when stepped on, nor is it a generic explosion. Gee I guess that means you go to the "apply logic" step.
That is why you can have games instead of needing to detail out every single item that is allowed to exist in the game, and every single use and interaction between every item.
There will never be a full list of every possible form of trap, mine and IED that can ever be devised with a full listing of how it will interact in every circumstance.
This is a game not a doctoral thesis.

The use logic is in direct contradiction to make the device act as if it is using a called shot. Stating that a trap that targets a specific area acts as if it is making a called shot covers all traps that would target a specific area rather than leaving it open to GM discretion. Well it says to use logic so the weapon popping up and blowing off your head is what should happen. Traps don't always work as planned or designed.

At the point of being redundant here...let me be redundant

Imagine a PC is walking through some terrain and triggers a trap...
How do you assign the damage to the PC? Do you take the damage off of their SDC then HP or do you stop and figure out exactly where in the body they got struck and then damage that?
You simply damage the PC and move on in 99% of cases.
That is because the hit locations are designed to represent the abstract idea of specifically targeting one location for some specific purpose usually.

Now a 20' Robot comes along and does the same thing.
It is no different. The damage system doesn't change magically just because its a robot.
You take the damage off of its "Hit points" and move on...

Now yes, if you step on a mine the GM may choose to damage your hit location instead of your "Hit points"... both as a regular human and as a giant robot. But they don't have to. The damage system is abstracted enough that a mine can damage your HP, just like we do not stop after every swing of a sword in combat to determine which hit location was hit...
This is not a highly detailed granular system trying to model combat accurately and faithfully. It is a fast abstracted system where we have highly cinematic action and daring do. And abstract systems have the built in feature of being... well abstract. Sometimes that means that you will get some unrealistic results. Such as the example previously given of being shot in the rear after taking damage to the front...logically the armor should be just as solid. Or the question of why body armor 'breaks' after you punch it to many times (this is magnified when you consider that a SDC punch or two will, by the rules, destroy clothing.)...
...and sometimes that means that stepping on a mine just causes you to lose hit points.

eliakon wrote:At the point of being redundant here...let me be redundant

Imagine a PC is walking through some terrain and triggers a trap...
How do you assign the damage to the PC? Do you take the damage off of their SDC then HP or do you stop and figure out exactly where in the body they got struck and then damage that?
You simply damage the PC and move on in 99% of cases.
That is because the hit locations are designed to represent the abstract idea of specifically targeting one location for some specific purpose usually.

Now a 20' Robot comes along and does the same thing.
It is no different. The damage system doesn't change magically just because its a robot.
You take the damage off of its "Hit points" and move on...

Now yes, if you step on a mine the GM may choose to damage your hit location instead of your "Hit points"... both as a regular human and as a giant robot. But they don't have to. The damage system is abstracted enough that a mine can damage your HP, just like we do not stop after every swing of a sword in combat to determine which hit location was hit...
This is not a highly detailed granular system trying to model combat accurately and faithfully. It is a fast abstracted system where we have highly cinematic action and daring do. And abstract systems have the built in feature of being... well abstract. Sometimes that means that you will get some unrealistic results. Such as the example previously given of being shot in the rear after taking damage to the front...logically the armor should be just as solid. Or the question of why body armor 'breaks' after you punch it to many times (this is magnified when you consider that a SDC punch or two will, by the rules, destroy clothing.)...
...and sometimes that means that stepping on a mine just causes you to lose hit points.

What? I ask, trying to get you to redundantly repeat yourself

eliakon wrote:Things...

I agree with this.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Axelmania wrote:The problem with treating it as a called shot is that called shots are specified as requiring a WP skill now.

Are they?

Well, the only place I can recall there being called shot rules, in the ranged combat section. Is there a broader section without that requirement. That would solve the Dead Reign "I can called shots with my machete" dilemma.

BuzzardB wrote:this

i agree with this, but not that.

Axelmania wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Axelmania wrote:The problem with treating it as a called shot is that called shots are specified as requiring a WP skill now.

Are they?

Well, the only place I can recall there being called shot rules, in the ranged combat section.

So no, it's not specified.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Axelmania wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Axelmania wrote:The problem with treating it as a called shot is that called shots are specified as requiring a WP skill now.

Are they?

Well, the only place I can recall there being called shot rules, in the ranged combat section.

So no, it's not specified.

To be accurate is the modern weapon proficiency subsection of ranged combat in rue, that is a subsection of combat in general. However there are rules on it also found in GMG.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Axelmania wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Axelmania wrote:The problem with treating it as a called shot is that called shots are specified as requiring a WP skill now.

Are they?

Well, the only place I can recall there being called shot rules, in the ranged combat section.

So no, it's not specified.

RUE page 360 "A character with a Moder W.P. can make Aimed and "Called Shots" (Aimed at a specific location within a larger target, such as shooting a gun out of an opponents hands..."

This is the only canonical statement that I can find that sates that aimed and called shots are a possible maneuver, and it states the requirement for doing so.
If there are other statements in other places that cover this I am unaware of them.
Now I know that many people have assumed that called shots are simply a thing and have the nigh universal house rule that they can be done with anything and such...
...but RAW, this is the only actual rule permiting them that I can find...
And it specifices that you require the proficency with the weapon to make an aimed or called shot.

It's worth noting that RUE 360 also states under "No Weapon Proficiency" that characters with no gun proficiency can't make aimed or called shots. In light of the information on p. 361 about burst shooting, it is safe to read "gun proficiency" as meaning a WP in the specific weapon type (and not merely a further penalty if one has no kind of gun WP at all). So the making of an aimed or called shot is explicitly forbidden without a WP in the weapon.

GMG pg 39
A "Called Shot" is an aimed shot that homes in on a specific part of a larger target such as the head, hand, gun, or radio on a character or the radio antenna, sensor cluster, spotlight, tires, etc., of a vehicle. An aimed, "Called Shot" is necessary to strike the tiny bull's-eye of a target, the sensor eye of a robot, or the gun held in an attacker's hand (the target is the gun, not the person holding it). To make a called shot, the player must "call" or "announce" his character's intension; i.e. "I'm going to shoot the gun from his hand.


pg 361 RUE
a called shot target specification. This is a shot that homes in on a specific part of a larger target, such as a bull's-eye. an opponent's head, hand, gun, radio antenna, sensor cluster, spotlight, tires, ect. but counts as two melee attacks.

To make a called shot the player must call or announce his charters intent.

Rifts RPG pg 40(obsolete)
A character may attempt to shoot a specific target or area. This is done by clearly stating what the exact target is before the roll to strike is made. Once the shot is "called", the player rolls the usual 1D20 to strike. A successful roll, above a 12, hits exactly whatever the intended target was, unless the opponent dodges. Called shots can be an important strategy enabling characters to disable robots and military vehicles rather than destroy the whole unit. This means a character can destroy specific targets on robots and vehicles, such as radar antennas, weapon barrels, sensors, mechanical legs, arms, etc. Note: Any shot which is not called will strike what is identified as the main body of the robot or vehicle. The main body is the largest, bulkiest part of the target and most likely to be hit. If a player calls his shot, but misses by rolling under 12, but above 4, he/she still strikes, but hits the main body instead of the specific, "called" target. I avoid random hit location tables because I feel the randomness is too flukey and unrealistic.



While it does say a charter with the WP can make a called shot, and also says a charter with no gun proficiency can not make called shot. It never clearly states it is required to have a WP to make a called shot with non gun weapons/attacks. The statement about making are found in the section covering modern WP. The mechanics of called shots never state that you need a skill to make a called shot, just that you announce the attempt.

My conclusion is that the book does say that guns(to include energy weapons) require a WP to make a called, but does not state that a WP is required to make a called shot out side of guns. So I would say that would be a GM call. I would rule that guns would require a WP to make a called shot(do to needing to able to aim them) other types of attacks do not, after all a dragon or dog boy does not have a WP for teeth and I do not see a dog boy as not being able to bite some one on the arm.

Blue_Lion wrote:GMG pg 39
A "Called Shot" is an aimed shot that homes in on a specific part of a larger target such as the head, hand, gun, or radio on a character or the radio antenna, sensor cluster, spotlight, tires, etc., of a vehicle. An aimed, "Called Shot" is necessary to strike the tiny bull's-eye of a target, the sensor eye of a robot, or the gun held in an attacker's hand (the target is the gun, not the person holding it). To make a called shot, the player must "call" or "announce" his character's intension; i.e. "I'm going to shoot the gun from his hand.


pg 361 RUE
a called shot target specification. This is a shot that homes in on a specific part of a larger target, such as a bull's-eye. an opponent's head, hand, gun, radio antenna, sensor cluster, spotlight, tires, ect. but counts as two melee attacks.

To make a called shot the player must call or announce his charters intent.

Rifts RPG pg 40(obsolete)
A character may attempt to shoot a specific target or area. This is done by clearly stating what the exact target is before the roll to strike is made. Once the shot is "called", the player rolls the usual 1D20 to strike. A successful roll, above a 12, hits exactly whatever the intended target was, unless the opponent dodges. Called shots can be an important strategy enabling characters to disable robots and military vehicles rather than destroy the whole unit. This means a character can destroy specific targets on robots and vehicles, such as radar antennas, weapon barrels, sensors, mechanical legs, arms, etc. Note: Any shot which is not called will strike what is identified as the main body of the robot or vehicle. The main body is the largest, bulkiest part of the target and most likely to be hit. If a player calls his shot, but misses by rolling under 12, but above 4, he/she still strikes, but hits the main body instead of the specific, "called" target. I avoid random hit location tables because I feel the randomness is too flukey and unrealistic.



While it does say a charter with the WP can make a called shot, and also says a charter with no gun proficiency can not make called shot. It never clearly states it is required to have a WP to make a called shot with non gun weapons/attacks. The statement about making are found in the section covering modern WP. The mechanics of called shots never state that you need a skill to make a called shot, just that you announce the attempt.

My conclusion is that the book does say that guns(to include energy weapons) require a WP to make a called, but does not state that a WP is required to make a called shot out side of guns. So I would say that would be a GM call. I would rule that guns would require a WP to make a called shot(do to needing to able to aim them) other types of attacks do not, after all a dragon or dog boy does not have a WP for teeth and I do not see a dog boy as not being able to bite some one on the arm.

We should also be able to assume that a machine that is all to identify a target and is programmed to shoot at the head is probably considered to have wp whatever the heck it's shooting right? So then can we also assume that like Davinci's robots a bouncing Betty or other specially designed trap is essentially "programmed" with the wp? On the other hand it could always be prerolled called shot by the person who plants it, which is just rolled at a later time when the device is tripped?

Zer0 Kay wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:GMG pg 39
A "Called Shot" is an aimed shot that homes in on a specific part of a larger target such as the head, hand, gun, or radio on a character or the radio antenna, sensor cluster, spotlight, tires, etc., of a vehicle. An aimed, "Called Shot" is necessary to strike the tiny bull's-eye of a target, the sensor eye of a robot, or the gun held in an attacker's hand (the target is the gun, not the person holding it). To make a called shot, the player must "call" or "announce" his character's intension; i.e. "I'm going to shoot the gun from his hand.


pg 361 RUE
a called shot target specification. This is a shot that homes in on a specific part of a larger target, such as a bull's-eye. an opponent's head, hand, gun, radio antenna, sensor cluster, spotlight, tires, ect. but counts as two melee attacks.

To make a called shot the player must call or announce his charters intent.

Rifts RPG pg 40(obsolete)
A character may attempt to shoot a specific target or area. This is done by clearly stating what the exact target is before the roll to strike is made. Once the shot is "called", the player rolls the usual 1D20 to strike. A successful roll, above a 12, hits exactly whatever the intended target was, unless the opponent dodges. Called shots can be an important strategy enabling characters to disable robots and military vehicles rather than destroy the whole unit. This means a character can destroy specific targets on robots and vehicles, such as radar antennas, weapon barrels, sensors, mechanical legs, arms, etc. Note: Any shot which is not called will strike what is identified as the main body of the robot or vehicle. The main body is the largest, bulkiest part of the target and most likely to be hit. If a player calls his shot, but misses by rolling under 12, but above 4, he/she still strikes, but hits the main body instead of the specific, "called" target. I avoid random hit location tables because I feel the randomness is too flukey and unrealistic.



While it does say a charter with the WP can make a called shot, and also says a charter with no gun proficiency can not make called shot. It never clearly states it is required to have a WP to make a called shot with non gun weapons/attacks. The statement about making are found in the section covering modern WP. The mechanics of called shots never state that you need a skill to make a called shot, just that you announce the attempt.

My conclusion is that the book does say that guns(to include energy weapons) require a WP to make a called, but does not state that a WP is required to make a called shot out side of guns. So I would say that would be a GM call. I would rule that guns would require a WP to make a called shot(do to needing to able to aim them) other types of attacks do not, after all a dragon or dog boy does not have a WP for teeth and I do not see a dog boy as not being able to bite some one on the arm.

We should also be able to assume that a machine that is all to identify a target and is programmed to shoot at the head is probably considered to have wp whatever the heck it's shooting right? So then can we also assume that like Davinci's robots a bouncing Betty or other specially designed trap is essentially "programmed" with the wp? On the other hand it could always be prerolled called shot by the person who plants it, which is just rolled at a later time when the device is tripped?

I kind of figure the skill check you use to set the boobytrap substitutes for the wp used to attack with a weapon. IE I walk up to xyz unit and place a demolition charge on it (roll demolitions) means if you succeed you generally get to do what you told the GM you were trying to do (although you still need to roll damage to see how successful it was in that aspect) IE I am going to stick the demolition charge on the back of the head/neck of the samas...or similar.

using the trapmaking skill a success means you generally designed (set) the trap correctly for what you are trying to accomplish. it still may not work as intended but you set it so it should work like the trip cable is set to do what you were trying, the problem is its calibrated for a person to trigger it, so the cyborg may not even notice it (or) trip over it if that was the goal

Blue_Lion wrote:GMG pg 39
A "Called Shot" is an aimed shot that homes in on a specific part of a larger target such as the head, hand, gun, or radio on a character or the radio antenna, sensor cluster, spotlight, tires, etc., of a vehicle. An aimed, "Called Shot" is necessary to strike the tiny bull's-eye of a target, the sensor eye of a robot, or the gun held in an attacker's hand (the target is the gun, not the person holding it). To make a called shot, the player must "call" or "announce" his character's intension; i.e. "I'm going to shoot the gun from his hand.


pg 361 RUE
a called shot target specification. This is a shot that homes in on a specific part of a larger target, such as a bull's-eye. an opponent's head, hand, gun, radio antenna, sensor cluster, spotlight, tires, ect. but counts as two melee attacks.

To make a called shot the player must call or announce his charters intent.

Rifts RPG pg 40(obsolete)
A character may attempt to shoot a specific target or area. This is done by clearly stating what the exact target is before the roll to strike is made. Once the shot is "called", the player rolls the usual 1D20 to strike. A successful roll, above a 12, hits exactly whatever the intended target was, unless the opponent dodges. Called shots can be an important strategy enabling characters to disable robots and military vehicles rather than destroy the whole unit. This means a character can destroy specific targets on robots and vehicles, such as radar antennas, weapon barrels, sensors, mechanical legs, arms, etc. Note: Any shot which is not called will strike what is identified as the main body of the robot or vehicle. The main body is the largest, bulkiest part of the target and most likely to be hit. If a player calls his shot, but misses by rolling under 12, but above 4, he/she still strikes, but hits the main body instead of the specific, "called" target. I avoid random hit location tables because I feel the randomness is too flukey and unrealistic.



While it does say a charter with the WP can make a called shot, and also says a charter with no gun proficiency can not make called shot. It never clearly states it is required to have a WP to make a called shot with non gun weapons/attacks. The statement about making are found in the section covering modern WP. The mechanics of called shots never state that you need a skill to make a called shot, just that you announce the attempt.

My conclusion is that the book does say that guns(to include energy weapons) require a WP to make a called, but does not state that a WP is required to make a called shot out side of guns. So I would say that would be a GM call. I would rule that guns would require a WP to make a called shot(do to needing to able to aim them) other types of attacks do not, after all a dragon or dog boy does not have a WP for teeth and I do not see a dog boy as not being able to bite some one on the arm.

I would like to point out that the GMG is not RUE compliant.
Therefore it isn't really a good source of rules information. Especially information that appears to contradict the RUE core book.

Thus, as written RAW only modern weapons can make called shots (hence the name 'shot'), and they require a WP to make them
That may not be RAI, or RAP (Rules as Played) but that is what the book allows for.
Now if there is a canon, RUE compliant ruleing that says otherwise... I'm all ears. But a RMB era rule is not one of those things.

guardiandashi wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:GMG pg 39
A "Called Shot" is an aimed shot that homes in on a specific part of a larger target such as the head, hand, gun, or radio on a character or the radio antenna, sensor cluster, spotlight, tires, etc., of a vehicle. An aimed, "Called Shot" is necessary to strike the tiny bull's-eye of a target, the sensor eye of a robot, or the gun held in an attacker's hand (the target is the gun, not the person holding it). To make a called shot, the player must "call" or "announce" his character's intension; i.e. "I'm going to shoot the gun from his hand.


pg 361 RUE
a called shot target specification. This is a shot that homes in on a specific part of a larger target, such as a bull's-eye. an opponent's head, hand, gun, radio antenna, sensor cluster, spotlight, tires, ect. but counts as two melee attacks.

To make a called shot the player must call or announce his charters intent.

Rifts RPG pg 40(obsolete)
A character may attempt to shoot a specific target or area. This is done by clearly stating what the exact target is before the roll to strike is made. Once the shot is "called", the player rolls the usual 1D20 to strike. A successful roll, above a 12, hits exactly whatever the intended target was, unless the opponent dodges. Called shots can be an important strategy enabling characters to disable robots and military vehicles rather than destroy the whole unit. This means a character can destroy specific targets on robots and vehicles, such as radar antennas, weapon barrels, sensors, mechanical legs, arms, etc. Note: Any shot which is not called will strike what is identified as the main body of the robot or vehicle. The main body is the largest, bulkiest part of the target and most likely to be hit. If a player calls his shot, but misses by rolling under 12, but above 4, he/she still strikes, but hits the main body instead of the specific, "called" target. I avoid random hit location tables because I feel the randomness is too flukey and unrealistic.



While it does say a charter with the WP can make a called shot, and also says a charter with no gun proficiency can not make called shot. It never clearly states it is required to have a WP to make a called shot with non gun weapons/attacks. The statement about making are found in the section covering modern WP. The mechanics of called shots never state that you need a skill to make a called shot, just that you announce the attempt.

My conclusion is that the book does say that guns(to include energy weapons) require a WP to make a called, but does not state that a WP is required to make a called shot out side of guns. So I would say that would be a GM call. I would rule that guns would require a WP to make a called shot(do to needing to able to aim them) other types of attacks do not, after all a dragon or dog boy does not have a WP for teeth and I do not see a dog boy as not being able to bite some one on the arm.

We should also be able to assume that a machine that is all to identify a target and is programmed to shoot at the head is probably considered to have wp whatever the heck it's shooting right? So then can we also assume that like Davinci's robots a bouncing Betty or other specially designed trap is essentially "programmed" with the wp? On the other hand it could always be prerolled called shot by the person who plants it, which is just rolled at a later time when the device is tripped?

I kind of figure the skill check you use to set the boobytrap substitutes for the wp used to attack with a weapon. IE I walk up to xyz unit and place a demolition charge on it (roll demolitions) means if you succeed you generally get to do what you told the GM you were trying to do (although you still need to roll damage to see how successful it was in that aspect) IE I am going to stick the demolition charge on the back of the head/neck of the samas...or similar.

using the trapmaking skill a success means you generally designed (set) the trap correctly for what you are trying to accomplish. it still may not work as intended but you set it so it should work like the trip cable is set to do what you were trying, the problem is its calibrated for a person to trigger it, so the cyborg may not even notice it (or) trip over it if that was the goal

Only thing I don't like about that is you can't dodge that nor roll from blast as there is no d20 to compete against.

eliakon wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:GMG pg 39
A "Called Shot" is an aimed shot that homes in on a specific part of a larger target such as the head, hand, gun, or radio on a character or the radio antenna, sensor cluster, spotlight, tires, etc., of a vehicle. An aimed, "Called Shot" is necessary to strike the tiny bull's-eye of a target, the sensor eye of a robot, or the gun held in an attacker's hand (the target is the gun, not the person holding it). To make a called shot, the player must "call" or "announce" his character's intension; i.e. "I'm going to shoot the gun from his hand.


pg 361 RUE
a called shot target specification. This is a shot that homes in on a specific part of a larger target, such as a bull's-eye. an opponent's head, hand, gun, radio antenna, sensor cluster, spotlight, tires, ect. but counts as two melee attacks.

To make a called shot the player must call or announce his charters intent.

Rifts RPG pg 40(obsolete)
A character may attempt to shoot a specific target or area. This is done by clearly stating what the exact target is before the roll to strike is made. Once the shot is "called", the player rolls the usual 1D20 to strike. A successful roll, above a 12, hits exactly whatever the intended target was, unless the opponent dodges. Called shots can be an important strategy enabling characters to disable robots and military vehicles rather than destroy the whole unit. This means a character can destroy specific targets on robots and vehicles, such as radar antennas, weapon barrels, sensors, mechanical legs, arms, etc. Note: Any shot which is not called will strike what is identified as the main body of the robot or vehicle. The main body is the largest, bulkiest part of the target and most likely to be hit. If a player calls his shot, but misses by rolling under 12, but above 4, he/she still strikes, but hits the main body instead of the specific, "called" target. I avoid random hit location tables because I feel the randomness is too flukey and unrealistic.



While it does say a charter with the WP can make a called shot, and also says a charter with no gun proficiency can not make called shot. It never clearly states it is required to have a WP to make a called shot with non gun weapons/attacks. The statement about making are found in the section covering modern WP. The mechanics of called shots never state that you need a skill to make a called shot, just that you announce the attempt.

My conclusion is that the book does say that guns(to include energy weapons) require a WP to make a called, but does not state that a WP is required to make a called shot out side of guns. So I would say that would be a GM call. I would rule that guns would require a WP to make a called shot(do to needing to able to aim them) other types of attacks do not, after all a dragon or dog boy does not have a WP for teeth and I do not see a dog boy as not being able to bite some one on the arm.

I would like to point out that the GMG is not RUE compliant.
Therefore it isn't really a good source of rules information. Especially information that appears to contradict the RUE core book.

Thus, as written RAW only modern weapons can make called shots (hence the name 'shot'), and they require a WP to make them
That may not be RAI, or RAP (Rules as Played) but that is what the book allows for.
Now if there is a canon, RUE compliant ruleing that says otherwise... I'm all ears. But a RMB era rule is not one of those things.

I am sorry where does it say that it requires a WP to make a called shot?
I see that you can not make called shots with guns (including energy weapons) without a WP, and it lists the abilty to do called shots with guns wp. But it never says you need a WP and as the mechanics description just requires announcing it no listed requirement of WP mechanically it is not stated.
In this case GMG description of the mechanic appears to be a expanded version of the mechanic listed in RUE. As there is no direct conflict it still valid in RAW.