Armour feats - do they make sense?

[Mistwell]

What about a Steyr AUG? Compared to the M16, the Steyr is much more expensive but has the same stats.

Steyr comes witha built in optical scope, increasing it's effective range. Again, the scope is mentioned in the description.

[Other example: M4 -> as Large as the M16, all's the same except the M4 has smaller range.

M4 is a lighter weapon.

Etc etc.

Nope, name them. So far you have 3 examples all of which I feel have been shown to be false. You have made a generalization about all the guns, and I simply do not think it is a valid generalization. What else do you think is not balanced?

 

[Shadowlord]

What should the designers have done - make one gun unrealistically different from the other or just not listed one of them?

I'm certainly not craving for realism, cos all the weapons are unrealistic (otherwise they would have added Armour Piercing, RAte of Recoil, Overheat...) and I don't care cos it's a game. What I do want though is the same weapon balance as found in the PHB. I think the designers had some idea to do it right, but eventually they put everything into one sloppy list (due to time pressure??).

It DOES say it becomes smaller without the stock! Read it again. And it's backed up in Ultramodern firearms with further description about that feature.

I read it again and it does NOT say anything of it becoming Medium or so. Now you read it again.

P101: "It features a collapsible stock, making it extremely compact."

Nice flavor text, but how "compact" is it?

Steyr comes witha built in optical scope, increasing it's effective range. Again, the scope is mentioned in the description.

"It features a built-in optical sight."

Again, I consider this flavor text cos there's no such thing as an "optical sight" in the book. If they meant to give it away for free, they would have written "scope, see pX" etc.

The MAC Ingram for ex also says that it can have a silencer without modification, but it doesn't mention it HAS one for free!

M4 is a lighter weapon.

It SHOULD have been a lighter weapon, but the rules explicitely state it's Large ! Please look it up; I think you're guessing what it should be (and I agree) but the book sadly reads otherwise. I'll give you some more examples but so far you didn't prove me wrong.
If you want to know what I think is really balanced, please tell me your email and I'll send you a nice list.

 

[lmccauley]

I'm certainly not craving for realism, cos all the weapons are unrealistic (otherwise they would have added Armour Piercing, RAte of Recoil, Overheat...) and I don't care cos it's a game. What I do want though is the same weapon balance as found in the PHB. I think the designers had some idea to do it right, but eventually they put everything into one sloppy list (due to time pressure??).

Well, there's realistic and there's detailed.

I think it's unrealistic to say that one weapon is smaller than another even when they are the same size and weight (Uzi cf HK MP5 in your thread over on the Wizards board, which I can't access at the moment).

However, I can accept that an M16 and an M4 have practically the same stats, because the system is not detailed enough to show the subtle differences.

I read it again and it does NOT say anything of it becoming Medium or so. Now you read it again.

P101: "It features a collapsible stock, making it extremely compact."

Nice flavor text, but how "compact" is it?

19 inches - see my reply above where I talk about whether that should make it Medium or not. It would have been useful to include the weapon lengths so that players can better visualise quite how large a weapon is when they're trying to imagine whether it would fit in a sports bag, briefcase, overcoat, etc. It would also have been interesting to know what criteria the designers used to decide on the Size of a weapon. I've been assuming it's weapon length, because Size is used when trying to conceal a weapon. However, it also affects whether the weapon can be used one-handed or not, so weight must also factor into it.

It SHOULD have been a lighter weapon, but the rules explicitely state it's Large ! Please look it up; I think you're guessing what it should be (and I agree) but the book sadly reads otherwise. I'll give you some more examples but so far you didn't prove me wrong.

Size and weight are given as separate stats in the rules. An M4 is a lighter Weight than an M16 in the rules, but the same Size. Again, I think it would be nice to know what criteria were used for determining Size and what the values were for each Size category.

Cheers,
Liam

 

[Shadowlord]

I think it's unrealistic to say that one weapon is smaller than another even when they are the same size and weight (Uzi cf HK MP5 in your thread over on the Wizards board, which I can't access at the moment).

That list was still incomplete; look at it now. MP5, although Large, can be used one-handed and M4, although Medium, must be used two-handed.

19 inches - see my reply above where I talk about whether that should make it Medium or not.

Who says so?
A lance in d&d for ex is much longer than a greataxe or a staff, yet a lance is Medium and the other two are Large.

Where size plays a significant role ruleswise, weight is only a detail. So what if one gun weights a pound or two more/less than rhe other?? That doesn't cope with the other stats. Hmm, M4 weights 1 lb less than M16 with better range... I think I'll go for -1 lb instead of +20 ft and Burst. You see?

 

[lmccauley]

That list was still incomplete; look at it now. MP5, although Large, can be used one-handed and M4, although Medium, must be used two-handed.

I'll have a look at it again when I'm at home.

I don't understand how you can make an M4 smaller than an MP5. Here are the real world stats:

MP5 26" 7.5lb
M4 30-33" 7.5lb

What logic are you using to say that the MP5 is Large and the M4 Medium?

Who says so?

I checked the manufacturer's site for the length value.

A lance in d&d for ex is much longer than a greataxe or a staff, yet a lance is Medium and the other two are Large.

Yes, but a lance, greataxe and staff are all used in different ways. Most longarms are used in the same way. The only variables I can think of that would affect the Size of a longarm are the length and weight.

Where size plays a significant role ruleswise, weight is only a detail. So what if one gun weights a pound or two more/less than rhe other?? That doesn't cope with the other stats. Hmm, M4 weights 1 lb less than M16 with better range... I think I'll go for -1 lb instead of +20 ft and Burst. You see?

Oh yes, that shows that the system is not detailed enough to cope with the reasons why you might choose an M4 in the real world.

Here's an extract from an article I read:
"On the surface it would seem that the M16A2 is a superior rifle; however, several other factors must be taken into consideration. If we want to discuss retained velocity, terminal ballistics, and the effect of a projectile upon the human body we must first ensure that we can accurately place our round into the human body. Our ability to easily manipulate our weapon greatly contributes to this ability. While the M16A2 is a relatively ergonomic weapon in regard to manipulation, it does have several problems. The length of both stock and barrel are well-suited for known distance target shooting (the Marine Corps rifle team’s influence is seen here) but is not what we are looking for in a combat rifle. The M16A2’s 13.5-inch length of pull is generally too long for the average Marine in an aggressive Weaver type (basic warrior) fighting stance when wearing a flack jacket and load-bearing equipment. The M4A1 has a variable length of pull from 10.5 to 13 inches. This allows the Marine to rapidly shoulder the weapon from a proper fighting stance (or any other position) with combat gear. The reduced barrel length allows the weapon to be more easily maneuvered in restrictive terrain, urban areas, vehicles, and aircraft. Again, we must understand (as numerous studies have shown) that it is unlikely that we will often be required to engage targets beyond 200 yards. At this range the retained velocity of the 5.56mm round fired from a 14.5-inch barrel provides adequate terminal ballistics."

The D20M system is not detailed enough to account for manouvering in restricted terrain. Presumably this is because the designers picked a level of detail that worked in most circumstances but wasn't too complex.

Cheers,
Liam

 

[Mistwell]

I read it again and it does NOT say anything of it becoming Medium or so. Now you read it again.

P101: "It features a collapsible stock, making it extremely compact."

Nice flavor text, but how "compact" is it?

It's up to your GM depending on the situation, but CR says its a +1 to your slight of hand use with this weapon.

"It features a built-in optical sight."

Again, I consider this flavor text cos there's no such thing as an "optical sight" in the book. If they meant to give it away for free, they would have written "scope, see pX" etc.

We disagree. I would give the gun a free scope based on that description.

The MAC Ingram for ex also says that it can have a silencer without modification, but it doesn't mention it HAS one for free!

It CAN HAVE a silencer without modification, IE you need not make the repair check. It does not say it DOES HAVE. However, the weapon we are discussion says it DOES HAVE an optical sight.

It SHOULD have been a lighter weapon, but the rules explicitely state it's Large ! Please look it up; I think you're guessing what it should be (and I agree) but the book sadly reads otherwise. I'll give you some more examples but so far you didn't prove me wrong.

Sigh. Lighter = weight. I didn't say it was smaller, I said it was lighter. Look at the weight listing. It weighs less, IE it is lighter.