Attacks of Vulnerability

ogre

First Post
In an attempt to make firearms 'quicker and hence, deadlier' I have come up with a new form of AoO. I haven't play tested it yet, but I thought I would post it here and see if it can be ripped apart before I do :D
I realize there are some who believe that firearms are fine in d20 Modern as they are, and that is fine. But, for the sake of this thread, please assume you feel they at least could be more scary in the game. Play devil's advocate if you must, we can save the discussion on if a new rule is needed or not for another thread if you wish.
The intent of this idea is to portray the quickness and upper hand one has with a gun that just isn't as relavant as say someone holding a knife or a bow. When I see real-world examples of gun fights, it just seems like people are diving for cover for more reasons than a "+4 to Defense"
So, with that said, let me know what you think.


Attacks of Vulnerability
Firearm combat rules assume that combatants are using cover, are prone or are more than one range increment from each other. Sometimes however, a combatant in a gunfight exposes himself, and doesn’t take proper precautions to protect himself from the speed and accuracy of firearms. In this case, combatants within one range increment can take advantage of this lapse in judgment to attack for free. These attacks are called attacks of vulnerability (AoV).

Weapon Type
A character can use a firearm weapon to make attacks of vulnerability whenever the conditions for such an attack are met (see Provoking an Attack of Vulnerability, below). A character never makes an AoV with other ranged or melee weapons.

Exposed Targets
A character with a ready firearm (it must be out and ready to fire) exposes all targets within one range increment of the weapon, even when it is not the character’s action. An enemy that is exposed while within range provokes an attack of vulnerability from the character.

Provoking an Attack of Vulnerability
The following two conditions must be met in order to provoke an attack of vulnerability:
1. The exposed target must be within one range increment of the attackers firearm.
2. The exposed target does not have any cover, concealment or is not prone.

Making an Attack of Vulnerability
An AoV is a single ranged attack with a firearm. Making an AoV uses one of the characters available attacks of opportunity (AoO). If he already used all of his available attacks of opportunity for the round, he cannot make an AoV and vise versa. A character does not have to make an AoV if he doesn’t want to.
An experienced character gets additional regular attacks (by using the full attack action), but at a lower attack bonus. A character makes his AoV however, at his normal attack bonus—even if the character has already attacked in this round.

Special Instances
If the target of an AoV threatens the attacker and is granted an AoO due to him using a ranged weapon while threatened, the AoO is resolved before the AoV. The one making the AoO can make a normal attack, which cancels the AoV if it does hit point damage (including nonlethal) or attempt a disarm maneuver which will also negate the AoV if successful.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

So you want us to ignore the question of game balance, and just critique your new feat? OK.

Given your description, might the 2nd pre-req look more like this ...

2. The exposed target has already had a full turn of combat but is currently not in range of any cover, concealment or is not prone.

That seems to be a better way to enforce the action you've identified, as it clearly indicates that he has made the decision to remain in the "open" rather than scurry for some kind of cover.
 

Devyn
Well, my intent was not to ignore game balance for this discussion, but rather, ignore the stance that "guns are fine the way they are and don't need to be more deadly". I've nothing against that point of view, but for the sake of getting feedback on this rule, I wanted to 'assume that guns can be made more realistic and a new rule may help that'.

So, as far as balance goes, I realize this does make guns unbalancing against other types of weapons. But I feel they should be.
What I want to achieve is something like this:
Someone is pointing a gun at a person (target), he's 30 ft. away. Something happens that initiates combat. Say, the target says something the gun person doesn't like, so he shoots. Normally, it would call for initiative. If the gun holder lost, the target could simply move up and attack the gun holder with a knife or fist, before he gets a shot off. Not very likely.
This is the type of senario I am trying to 'fix'.

Given your description, might the 2nd pre-req look more like this ...

2. The exposed target has already had a full turn of combat but is currently not in range of any cover, concealment or is not prone.

I think this hinders the rule too much, as it suggests that combat must have already started.
The intent of #2 was to allow a free attack against anyone who is out in the open at any time, whether that person is in combat or not.

Also, it's not a new feat (just for clarification). It's intended to be part of the rules, just like AoO.
 

ogre said:
So, as far as balance goes, I realize this does make guns unbalancing against other types of weapons. But I feel they should be.
What I want to achieve is something like this:
Someone is pointing a gun at a person (target), he's 30 ft. away. Something happens that initiates combat. Say, the target says something the gun person doesn't like, so he shoots. Normally, it would call for initiative. If the gun holder lost, the target could simply move up and attack the gun holder with a knife or fist, before he gets a shot off. Not very likely.
This is the type of senario I am trying to 'fix'.

Actually, it's VERY likely. At 30 ft., your chances of hitting and putting down someone who decides to charge you with a knife are not at all good - probably no better than the knife-wielder's chances of closing with you, possibly after a missed shot, and putting a knife through you.

Admittedly, in the example given, the gun person is initiating combat by shooting someone for mouthing off, rather than both starting the encounter wary and ready for action (much less the gunman drawing and firing, in which case someone with a drawn knife almost certainly has the edge at 30 ft.). I would consider your scenario a surprise round, not roll for initiative.

Certainly, as a player, I've interrupted a villain monologue with "I shoot him." If the GM had called for initiative rather than treating my firing in mid-sentence as a surprise round, I'd have been a bit ticked off.

SCENARIO 1: Gunman aims, knifer mouths off, gunman shoots him. Advantage: gunman (he gets a surprise round).

SCENARIO 2: Gunman aims, knifer feints and charges. Advantage: none (roll for initiative).

SCENARIO 3: Gunman aims, knifer feints and charges but is 65 ft. away (and has no movement abilities). Advantage: gunman (even without a surprise round, he gets to shoot first).

That's actually pretty realistic, from what I can tell.

Mind you, I'm not opposed to AoO rules for ranged weapons and am strongly in favor of anything that improves the value of cover (although d20 Modern cover already goes up to +6 and +8 if you've got enough of it).
 

ready action anyone?

sure, its not aoo, but its damn close :)

you can even move your initative upwards when using it by holding your action until the next round, when some high initative character does something.
 

MoogleEmpMog
I can't really agree that a person 30 ft away would have any chance of moving to attack a gun holder. I could see a knife thrower doing a feint, whipping out and throwing a knife though! Mind you, I am assuming the gun is drawn and pointed, not in a holster "A character with a ready firearm (it must be out and ready to fire) " Heck, anyone trained in firearms could feasibly squeeze off multiple shots in that time period, even with a revolver.
However, I think you're suggesting the feint use of the Bluff skill? If so, then I will conceed your point, as that does seem feasable to me. But, we don't have to argue this point, so let's agree to disagree. :)
I would like to get your feedback on the feasibility of this AoV system, since you are willing to entertain the concepts of ranged AoO and more valued cover.
Do you think this system will work as it is intended, or do you think there are abuses I have not seen? Is it too complicated, unclear or is there something I overlooked ruleswise?

These actions do make sense, but I believe they are against the rules.
MoogleEmpMog's point about a surprise round-
First, a surprise round doesn't happen if both parties are aware of eachother. So the "I shoot" in mid sentence only produces an initiative roll by RAW and assuming the speaker was aware of you.

hobgoblin
Readied actions can only be made while in combat, after inititive is rolled. They cannot be made outside of combat. So, I see you point, and yes they are quite useful for gunfights while in combat, but they still don't make a gun being pointed at you outside of combat anymore effective, nor does it make cover more valuable.
 
Last edited:

I just posted this in the house rules forum, d'oh where it probably should have went originally. Feel free to keep up the dicussion here though, I'll check both!
 

Remove ads

Top