Making firearms more important

[Morrus]

This isn't about making firearms uber deadly compared to stabbings and maulings -- it's about encouraging use of cover and ranged shots in a non-melee-centric environment. The rules as they stand tend to make it advantageous to close on a gun wielder ASAP, and don't make you want to hide behind a barrel taking potshots.

So, here goes. This is for a far-future setting, but similar principles can apply in others.

This WILL need tweaking. Probably a lot. I doubt it works well yet.

1. Some firearms are designated with the "sidearm" property. These are typically pistols and the like - quick and easy to use.
2. Sidearms do not provoke attacks of opportunity in melee.
3. Sidearms, in fact, are great at point-blank range. A shot from 5' away (in melee, or one sq on a battlemap) is gonna hurt. The attacker gets a +4 bonus to hit, and a hit autocrits.
4. Rifles (or bows) do not have the "sidearm" property.
5. "Overwatch" is a standard action similar to readying an action. It's basically readying an action to fire as soon as a target breaks cover.
6. "Covering Fire" is an full-round-action area attack, affecting a 15' radius circle until the beginning of your next turn or until you are hit, whichever comes first. Any creature within that area which is not in 100% cover, or which leaves 100% cover, or which enters the area, is subject to an attack at -2 to hit.

Thoughts?

 

[RangerWickett]

This now encourages gunslingers to get as close to the target as possible. You typically don't see shooters charging at their target, do you?

I'd say:

1. Sidearms don't provoke OAs in melee.

2. Additionally, any projectile weapon that is loaded can be used to make an opportunity attack against any creature within 30 ft. that ends its movement without cover. If a creature charges you, you can shoot it at the end of your movement before it gets a chance to attack. (Basically it runs, you bang, and if it dies its body slides to a stop beside your feet.)

3. Overwatch is basically just an example of 'ready an action.'

4. Suppressing Fire is a standard action, though if you lose line of sight to the target area (or if you're disarmed, stunned, etc.), the effect ends. You need an automatic weapon, and using the action spends 10 shots. Choose a 15-ft. radius. You can make opportunity attacks at range against any creature in that area, and any creature in that area takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls until the start of your next turn.

 

[Derren]

Unless you make firearms "uber deadly" you can't really make them more useful. The advantages of modern firearms is that they can kill people before they can get close. In a D&D/PF like setting this isn't the case as because of the HP bloat everyone can easily take several shots and get into melee range anyway, especially as even in modern games combat tends to happen at very close quarters.

So either firearms need to be a lot stronger or they must make it harder for enemies to close into melee range by disrupting movement.
And imo, making sidearms AoO free will likely result in everyone using sidearms as this is the primary weakness of firearms. As RangerWickett said, with that rules you just have created melee firearms because the +4 to hit is just too good to pass up as compared to an actual melee weapon.

 

[Morrus]

This now encourages gunslingers to get as close to the target as possible. You typically don't see shooters charging at their target, do you?

Very true. I didn't see that.

Additionally, any projectile weapon that is loaded can be used to make an opportunity attack against any creature within 30 ft. that ends its movement without cover. If a creature charges you, you can shoot it at the end of your movement before it gets a chance to attack. (Basically it runs, you bang, and if it dies its body slides to a stop beside your feet.)

Interesting. That's essentially attacking the "overwatch" concept from a different direction.

My overwatch thoughts come from those games which manage to get you to actually use it -- the recent XCOM game, for example.

3. Overwatch is basically just an example of 'ready an action.'

Of course, yep. Problem is, it's clearly not effective at that task because nobody ever does it. And gamers do what works. So it needs to be a separated out, enhanced readied action.

4. Suppressing Fire is a standard action, though if you lose line of sight to the target area (or if you're disarmed, stunned, etc.), the effect ends.

I can't agree there. Suppressing fire is most often used on targets you don't have line of sight to. It's there to stop them poking their heads out.

 

[Morrus]

Unless you make firearms "uber deadly" you can't really make them more useful. The advantages of modern firearms is that they can kill people before they can get close. In a D&D/PF like setting this isn't the case as because of the HP bloat everyone can easily take several shots and get into melee range anyway, especially as even in modern games combat tends to happen at very close quarters.

Yep, I appreciate the difficulties.

 

[malcolm_n]

I like where this is going. The idea that the weapon hurts up close is a good one, and I think we can maybe expand on the idea. Maybe within 1 range increment, they deal higher damage, or crit for more? It still means you want to be close, but you don't have to be in melee. Addons like scopes could maybe allow you to keep your bonus outside of the increment, since you can still pinpoint a crucial area.

Describing overwatch as an option for ready-an-action works well enough. Since it's already something you can do anyway, we're basically just spelling it out for anybody who didn't think about it up front.

In some of the Modern games I've played, suppressing fire usually required a feat to accomplish, but I could see it with automatic weapons. Do we also want to consider things like Double-tap? There's a d20 supplement by Green Ronin that could be scavenged for ideas called Ultramodern Firearms. It includes things like gun-clerics from Equilibrium, rules modifications for showdowns, etc. Converting some of that concept to PF wouldn't be difficult.

A side note, I worry that as we make more changes we're approaching a different combat system. That's no problem from a design standpoint, but do we want to force players in the setting to use it? As it's written now, it's just an overlay on top of current rules. Players can use ranged or melee, though ranged is more readily available in the far future as it provides more options strategically. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight, as it were.

 

[Derren]

I think it goes a bit against the spirit of modern weapons to make them stronger at close range (except for the shotgun).

Imo movement impairment it the way to go:

Overwatch: (Not sure if declared against all enemies or against a specific enemy)
When the target moves out of cover make an attack against that target. It is moved into cover again and its movement ends. If there is no cover in range it turn ends.

Suppressing fire (automatic weapon only):
Cone area. For every square an enemy moves inside the area and is not in cover make a attack against it.
It would probably be wise to have a minimum range for suppressing fire. Also allies in the area should also suffer some negative effects and/or at least count as cover for the enemy.

This way one can keep enemies pinned down and can make charging a gunman very costly unless you can get inside the minimum range quickly.

 

[Morrus]

You don't bring a knife to a gun fight, as it were.

That' the problem - in the core rules, you do bring a knife to a gunfight.

I think it goes a bit against the spirit of modern weapons to make them stronger at close range

Maybe not stronger, but more accurate. Shooting someone from 3 feet away is very easy with a hi-tech recoilless laser gun! Easier even than, I daresay, whacking 'em with a sword.

 

[Derren]

Maybe not stronger, but more accurate. Shooting someone from 3 feet away is very easy with a hi-tech recoilless laser gun! Easier even than, I daresay, whacking 'em with a sword.

Actually shooting someone moving and dodging at close range is harder than at medium range.

 

[Morrus]

Actually shooting someone moving and dodging at close range is harder than at medium range.

"Moving and dodging" isn't covered by Pathfinder rules except as a Dex bonus to AC. The same would apply to a bow. I was talking about "all other things being equal".

The point here is to tweak the system for a sci-fi setting so that folks use laser guns rather than swords, not to discourage it. The real world isn't the model here, any more than it is for swordfights.