Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ogre" data-source="post: 3505721" data-attributes="member: 4671">DevynWell, my intent was not to ignore game balance for this discussion, but rather, ignore the stance that &quot;guns are fine the way they are and don't need to be more deadly&quot;. 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'.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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ogre, post: 3505721, member: 4671"] 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'. 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification