Autofire on big targets, ala cars, etc.

[Plane Sailing]

Hi kreynolds!

In the spirit of your original post, asking for brainstorming, how about the following idea?

If the target completely fills a 5ft square (or more) then an attack is treated as if under the effect of the burst fire feat - i.e. does 2 extra dice damage. The user doesn't need to have the feat.

The thinking here is that it isn't very hard to land several bullets on the same target, so treat it the same way as the feat which is used to do that.

It could be scaled, in that burst fire normally uses ~5 rounds for +2d, so this could be 10r for +4d.

Thus it is bad news for cars, some bullets will still go into the pavement or above the target, but it is easy to get more bullets onto the target, doing more damage.

I think this is a better balance than adding up multiple bullet hits - after all, double tap would (in fact) mean that two bullets hit someone - yet it doesn't do 4d damage, only 3d.

Hope this helps

 

[danzig138]

If the target completely fills a 5ft square (or more) then an attack is treated as if under the effect of the burst fire feat - i.e. does 2 extra dice damage. The user doesn't need to have the feat.

Without an in-depth analysis, this seems like a pretty good solution, allowing for increased damage, without extra calculations.

 

[Ranger REG]

So, if you're standing right in front of a car (i.e. 10 feet to 5 feet), 9 bullets just vanish and only 1 hits? How does that make any sense?

It makes sense if the car is not your intended target. It just happened to be there.

And remember this is an abstract combat system, in the case of autofire, you don't take account for every bullet hit or miss, you take account for the damage you inflicted by the autofire attack option.

It doesn't. It only makes sense that you would fill the car with lead. Even in an abstract combat/hit/miss system, you are effectively attacking four squares. The car fills all four squares. You hit all four squares. But you can damage only one? I don't buy it.

Could you say the same for other area effect attack such as grenade and explosion? Or a simple fireball spell that expands to 20-feet radius? I mean that low-level spell alone should char-broil a dragon, making them less frightening than a kobold.

Oh, I do apologize if there is any rude tone in my message. I just do not want to be that red dragon corporate executive taken out by a lowly mage assassin with a fireball spell ready.

Of course, I cannot stress this enough (and I assume you have seen my previous postings scattered throughout the message board), I personally do not agree that we should have Burst Fire as a feat. It should be an attack option. That way if you INTEND to target a car, you should do so.

 

[kreynolds]

It makes sense if the car is not your intended target.

It still doesn't make sense. Take a wall of sheetrock with you standing 10 feet away. The bullet's simply don't have anywhere to go.

And remember this is an abstract combat system, in the case of autofire, you don't take account for every bullet hit or miss, you take account for the damage you inflicted by the autofire attack option.

I'm cool with abstract, honestly. But this is just too abstract for my taste.

Could you say the same for other area effect attack such as grenade and explosion?

No. It was one grenade that struck all the squares, one source, so I'm cool with that.

Or a simple fireball spell that expands to 20-feet radius?

No. It was one fireball that struck all the squares, one source, so I'm cool with that.

Autofire is 10 bullets that strikes the car filling those four squares, 10 different sources, but only one counts, and that's what bugs me.

Oh, I do apologize if there is any rude tone in my message. I just do not want to be that red dragon corporate executive taken out by a lowly mage assassin with a fireball spell ready.

Don't worry dude. I'll leave autofire as is just to see how you play that character.

Of course, I cannot stress this enough (and I assume you have seen my previous postings scattered throughout the message board), I personally do not agree that we should have Burst Fire as a feat. It should be an attack option. That way if you INTEND to target a car, you should do so.

An interesting alternative.

 

[Ranger REG]

It still doesn't make sense. Take a wall of sheetrock with you standing 10 feet away. The bullet's simply don't have anywhere to go.

In combat, should you be concerned about your intended target, ... or that sheetrock?

AFAIC, in a gunfight I'm want to know if I hurt my opponent. I'll let the GM decide if the sheetrock may harm me as a result of gunfire.

The same goes with having a bull run around in a china & crystal shop.

I'm cool with abstract, honestly. But this is just too abstract for my taste.

That's where reasonable judgment comes in.

Don't worry dude. I'll leave autofire as is just to see how you play that character.

Like that is going to help me. Humans with guns is a bad mix, especially for dragons. Thank gawd for Protection from Normal Missile.

An interesting alternative.

No, it's a Spycraft rule mechanic. Like I said, I have already been spoiled by Spycraft.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Oh, I do apologize if there is any rude tone in my message. I just do not want to be that red dragon corporate executive taken out by a lowly mage assassin with a fireball spell ready.

Still could be... the lower massive damage threshold is a real killer, and if the lowly assassin rolls well on his fireball spell, and you fail the massive damage check - whoops!

 

[kreynolds]

In combat, should you be concerned about your intended target, ... or that sheetrock?

What if the target is on the other side of the sheetrock? It might also be important to know what happens to the sheet rock later one, as if it takes too much damage, it won't be useable as good cover.

AFAIC, in a gunfight I'm want to know if I hurt my opponent. I'll let the GM decide if the sheetrock may harm me as a result of gunfire.

I also like to know what's happening to the environment. However, I lost you on the "sheetrock may harm me" bit.

That's where reasonable judgment comes in.

Right, and my reasonable judgement says that 9 vanishing bullets is complete bull. It's illogical. It's unjustifiable. It doesn't make any sense at all.

You and I disagree on the fundamental existence of autofire. No big deal, but this thread isn't about discussing whether or not autofire is fine the way it is. This is about changing it. You have made it clear that you don't want to change it, and while I enjoy a good discussion, this has veered the thread away from its intent.

I would, however, like to end this post with this thought...I was thinking about this last night, and I had an idea. A car would fill all 4 squares, right? But, can you actually shoot all four of those squares? No. Two of those squares will be on the opposite side of the car. See what I'm getting at?

 

[Bibliophile]

I would, however, like to end this post with this thought...I was thinking about this last night, and I had an idea. A car would fill all 4 squares, right? But, can you actually shoot all four of those squares? No. Two of those squares will be on the opposite side of the car. See what I'm getting at?

I see what you're getting at. hrm... the bullets that would normally destined for the squares on the opposite side of the car would be absorbed by the side closest to you.

Maybe something like this would work?

Each square that you can shoot takes full damage (as if it had been shot once) plus one die of damage per square directly behind it that the vechicle occupies. You could maybe up it to two dice of damage, but that might be a bit much...

So, with diagrams, say the car is 2 squares by 3 squares and you're targeting a 10x10 area

car here
| |c |d|
| |a|b|

X

so, if the character is at X targeting squares a,b,c,and d with autofire with... say a G3 (iirc it has autofire), then squares a and b each get 3d10 damage (2d10 for a single shot, and 1d10 for having one square behind each of them). Then, since vechicles can't have damage allocated to different parts, the vechicle takes 3d10 + 3d10 for 6d10 damage. Avg damage = 33. Enough to tear most civilian things apart pretty well, but leave them capable to move.

{edit}- blah, fixing formatting of the diagram

 

[Trainz]

I have found an easy way to fix autofire (10 bullets) versus larger than 5x5 targets IMC:

For each square of the burst that the target occupies, it must make an additional Ref Save, or get affected by an extra bullet. A creature with 5x10 facing would make two saves, a creature with 10x10 facing would make four saves (maximum area of an automatic burst).

It works well. Simple and elegant. A car from a HK G3 would take 4x2d10.

 

[Ranger REG]

What if the target is on the other side of the sheetrock? It might also be important to know what happens to the sheet rock later one, as if it takes too much damage, it won't be useable as good cover.

Then this should fall under Striking the Cover rule. Even if it penetrate the cover, the target still have some benefit because you can't precisely know where he is (a 5-by-5 area is still spacious for a Medium-sized human, for example).

I also like to know what's happening to the environment. However, I lost you on the "sheetrock may harm me" bit.

You know, you shoot in the direction of a sheetrock intending to hit your intended victim, you miss, the sheetrock cause a landslide trapping you underneath the debris ... did that to some poor player who lets out his MG. Hehehe.

If you want to keep track of what's happening to the environment as a result of gunfire, by all means go ahead. Call it a Collateral Damage vs. Stationary Object rule.

Right, and my reasonable judgement says that 9 vanishing bullets is complete bull. It's illogical. It's unjustifiable. It doesn't make any sense at all.

It makes sense when you're firing into an AREA, not an object. So chances are those other 9 bullets didn't home in on the car. It could hit the other objects in the environment (pavement, fire hydrant, a life-size cardboard standup of Eminem in front of a record store, etc.)

Let's agree to disagree. Let's also hope we do not revisit the "autofire attack on 20 men with 10 bullets" discussion.