It is not. Lost a guy to this exactly. Don't ask for more.The target's torso is on the ground, pretty much ruling out a direct hit. The ground is, in effect, providing cover for the target's torso.
-
- paladin2019
- Posts: 539
- Joined:
Re: Rule question: Fire at prone character
-
- FatherJ_ct
- Posts: 158
- Joined:
- Location: Northeast U.S.A. [CT]
- Contact:
Re: Rule question: Fire at prone character
Prone is just down on the ground, there is no cover (unless behind a log/sandbag etc). Person can be hit in the torso (neck/shoulder "collar", like you said, or side). The person down on the ground prone doesn't have perfect angle of only exposing head/arms thus making other locations missing. There could be slight angle to shooter and thus prone person gets hit anywhere. Straight line shot could pass inches away from head/arms and tag the person's leg/foot with such angles.... hit location die indicates the torso, how should that be handled?
The target's torso is on the ground, pretty much ruling out a direct hit. The ground is, in effect, providing cover for the target's torso.
Does this damage location die roll result effectively turn the rolled hit into a miss?
If the ground is cover, one can fire behind cover but the rules are clear that, in that case, the head and arms are exposed. Here, again, a hit to the torso would transform into a miss, no? This would include the legs too.
If all this is accurate, then prone is a pretty powerful combat position as the shooter can only take damage from a bullet if the hit location die result indicates head or arms. AND, the prone target position already gives shooters a -1 penalty on the to hit roll.
Now let's address the realism aspect of the above rules interpretations. On one hand, there's some realism there because a prone individual offers a much smaller target profile. Naturally, a prone target should be considerably harder to hit than an upright or crouching target. On the other hand, it seems kind of unrealistic that someone lying prone could never be hit in the legs or torso.
Couldn't a bullet hit a prone target in the collar area and penetrate the upper torso? Is that how a torso hit location result should be interpreted? In that case, the only advantage to being prone is the -1 to hit penalty. That seems a little harsh.
I thought writing this out might bring clarity, but I'm no closer to a definitive answer. All you rules lawyers out there, please weigh in.
-
Games abstract, you can go full crunch to try to dial in more realism (and figure out what parts of the person are truly exposed as they flopped on the ground ) or more rules light to speed up combat. I think the -1 for prone for harder target to hit is perfectly fine and does not need further ruling (or missing body parts rolled like if they were behind a wall)
Shooting someone standing in field, versus lying in a field, versus partially exposed out a window/vehicle/wall.
What I have a tough time with is the "torso" hit versus exposure when in vehicles/windows, did they pop up enough exposing chest? sometimes I will give a 1-2 on d6 (more for the players benefit on NPCs than other way around).
-
- paladin2019
- Posts: 539
- Joined:
Re: Rule question: Fire at prone character
If they exposed their arms enough to aim while they shoot, yes. Nametag defilade is a mitigation, not an absolute.What I have a tough time with is the "torso" hit versus exposure when in vehicles/windows, did they pop up enough exposing chest? sometimes I will give a 1-2 on d6 (more for the players benefit on NPCs than other way around).
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests